|
If the opponent is too powerful, I don't require skill checks to know this. I'll just choose a PC with appropriate (ball park) ranks and tell them, usually with some snippet about how they came across that knowledge.
If they still choose to attack, I'll convert any attack that knocks the first PC into negative as an automatic Combat Manuever success instead and make a show of it, using that character as a rag doll example of power disparity. My players know its their one 'out' to flee, after which all negative damage incured is truly deadly.
Agreed. Hill giant vs. Hill GIant Barbarian 10? Any number of additional hints could give the thing away --perhaps making the fighter roll a perception and letting him know that unlike the regular strand of hill giant--this one has an actual metal sword and appears to be standing in a fashion that looks suspiciously like the iron gate stance of a master swordsman. I dunno--I always use the knowledge skills to drop information.
Awesome suggestion there. Truly brilliant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How to identify class levels on a standard bestiary entry :
Full BAB Class Levels : 1d20 + Observer's BAB + Observer's Wisdom
3/4 BAB Non-Caster Class Levels : 1d20 + Observer's Int + Observer's Wisdom
3/4 BAB Spell Caster Levels : 1d20 + Observer's Caster Level + Observer's Wisdom
1/2 BAB Spell Caster : 1d20 + Observer's Caster Level + Observer's Wisdom
DC = Bestiary entry DC + 1/2 Class Levels.
Explanations :
Full BAB Class Levels : Your chances of recognizing them as being a trained fighter is directly relatable to how well trained you are as a fighter.
3/4 BAB Non-Caster Class Levels : These are usually skill monkey class characters, and you're more likely to notice these guys have extra equipment if you're smart, or if you're wise, or especially if you're both.
3/4 BAB Spell Caster Levels & 1/2 BAB Spell Caster Levels : Your chances of recognizing another spellcaster is directly relatable to how well trained you are as a spell caster.
@mdt: Where is that from?
@mdt: Where is that from?
A long time ago, and far far away...
There were two developers, and they loved each other very much...
And then the snake talked to one of them...
Then rocks fell...
And that was found engraved on the side of the rocks...
I just made it up. It's my suggestion for those looking for a way to judge whether someone can identify a bestiary entry with extra class levels.
I have seen something similar to it before.
Sense motive to sense how strong they are.
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 made it clear that engaging would be folly and that the creature wasn't targeting them specifically.
The wizard fireballed it forcing the confrontation and dragging the rest of the party into the confrontation. I was then castigated by the wizard player for putting something with too high a CR in front of them when they had to fight and kill it.
Is it me or is the idea of retreating to lick your wounds get better and come back something that has fallen by the wayside? Cause I sure felt like I was on the spot for it.
Nothing, but nothing gets me more pissed than when a player starts with this line of crap. usually do to their own stupidity too.
If players don't make their characters with skirmishing in mind, some will never consider it.
Great thread. It still amazes me how often I fall into "mechanical mode" when GMing, such as with Knowledge checks to ID monsters lately, and forget to add all the descriptive stuff that goes along with it. This discussion has certainly served to remind me to go beyond simple metagamy answers to ID checks.
Also, given that I play so rarely on the other side of the screen (the scary side) as a player, I often forget what the players' experiences can actually be like.
Nice job everyone. My players are going to benefit directly from this thread. Which means that I will benefit indirectly as well.
|
|
I've berated a GM for not being descriptive enough; when we fought a (resolute? entropic? one of them at least) Dire Bear with permanent Rage, for almost the entire combat we were under the impression that we were fighting a normal bear. Being a roughly level 6 party, a normal bear was something we knew how to handle.
I'm not saying that Thing was bad; it was tough but not impossible. But because it was introduced as "a bear", we had no idea that it was anything more than that.
---
Anyway, I'm thinking that the standard knowledge DC way of identifying a monster is rather counter-intuitive. Apparently the more dangerous a monster is, the fewer people have heard of it. That's just weird. It's like saying crocodiles are much more noteworthy than dragons, because they're not impossible to handle for ordinary villagers.
So maybe it makes more sense to split the knowledge DC into two parts: knowing useful information about strengths and weaknesses (using the normal DC), and on the second part an indication of the monster's danger level. This DC would be static (15 or so) with a -5 bonus to the DC for common creatures like local wildlife, and +5 for really rare creatures.
Passing the danger level check will only give you a ballpark figure of how bad the monster is, perhaps by reference to earlier deeds. "This looks like the hydra that sunk the queen's barge, even though it was defended by valiant knights. It was later slain down by Sir Slay, the legendary monster-hunter" as an indication that the monster's CR is somewhere in the 8-12 range, well above the party's APL.
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 made it clear that engaging would be folly and that the creature wasn't targeting them specifically.
The wizard fireballed it forcing the confrontation and dragging the rest of the party into the confrontation. I was then castigated by the wizard player for putting something with too high a CR in front of them when they had to fight and kill it.
Is it me or is the idea of retreating to lick your wounds get better and come back something that has fallen by the wayside? Cause I sure felt like I was on the spot for it.
No, it hasn't fallen by the wayside. Some people just haven't figured it out yet. In 3.x it even declares that roughly 1/20 encounters is expected to be overpowering (IE - retreat or suffer). It may take some getting used to, but most new players can simply be told there is a time and place for fighting. Some players who haven't realized that the CR system is not limiter but a tool for building fair encounters and awarding XP. It's entirely possible to have horribly unfair encounters.
They really just need to go to the Gandalf School of Adventure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a Sandbox game I am Co-GMing the Party literally just encountered the final Boss Lich and his Lich Dragon Ally at Level 1. By Accident while running away from a Orc Horde.
The Orc Horde was designed for them to defeat the Camp and level up to 2nd Level... But they seen a bunch of Orcs and decided to not try out their luck and ran to a nearby Dungeon. Only to walk in on the Lich and Dragon talking over battle plans with their Hobgoblin Generals.
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.
I certainly don't give out anything quite as metagamey as the CR, but I would pretty much always start out with a summary of how the creature fits into the world around it before bringing up nitty-gritty specifics like "immune to lightning". Something like:
Among the mightiest of giants, and quite a bit stronger than an elephant, this is a great storm giant. They are known to be reclusive, usually living in remote regions, preferably ones prone to storms which they are reputed to control. Storm giants are usually enemies of evil giants, but are known to be moody, impulsive, and quick to anger in general.
And then with a good enough knowledge check, I'd add that they wield lightning as a weapon (and are immune to it as well).
Hopefully, that would give them a pretty good picture of what to expect.
It also depends very much on playstyle. In a sandbox style game, you should expect to have lots of them and to get good at avoiding them. In a more plot driven game, they're going to be fewer and either just random encounters, signs that you've gone off in the wrong direction or plot necessary beatings. Either way the GM is responsible for giving enough warning to avoid or room to escape.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 made it clear that engaging would be folly and that the creature wasn't targeting them specifically.
The wizard fireballed it forcing the confrontation and dragging the rest of the party into the confrontation. I was then castigated by the wizard player for putting something with too high a CR in front of them when they had to fight and kill it.
Is it me or is the idea of retreating to lick your wounds get better and come back something that has fallen by the wayside? Cause I sure felt like I was on the spot for it.
No, it hasn't fallen by the wayside. Some people just haven't figured it out yet. In 3.x it even declares that roughly 1/20 encounters is expected to be overpowering (IE - retreat or suffer). It may take some getting used to, but most new players can simply be told there is a time and place for fighting. Some players who haven't realized that the CR system is not limiter but a tool for building fair encounters and awarding XP. It's entirely possible to have horribly unfair encounters.
They really just need to go to the Gandalf School of Adventure.
I don't really see why plot driven games are necessarily different. It's easy to see in a sandbox game the possibility of walking into a dragon's lair at 1st level (as odd as this would be IMHO) because you expect PCs to find stuff by wandering around. Yet, the idea that a game being plot-driven should or would be absent of encounters worth running away from seems odd. There are such encounters in The Red Hand of Doom (the party can literally end up taking on the whole army over a series of waves, and I ran it for a group that actually made it through several waves before considering retreat at all), but the book is quite insistent that you should definitely leave.
In my own campaigns there are often situations in a plot-driven game where PCs can test their might or test their sanity. Perhaps it comes from enjoying games like Final Fantasy V, VI, and VII growing up, but the idea that there might be some guy you should really just avoid unless you're feeling particularly heavy in the pants today is kind of appealing.
Even using Lord of the Rings as an example (which the entire movie plays like a D&D adventure for low-level characters) the party encounters the Balrog (a demonic creature of infinitely less power than a Balor :P) and simply run 'cause the party Knowledge guy knows better than to try to tangle with the thing with anything less than that kickass DR-piercing sword and some magic ('cause Fighter's can't have nice things man, believe it). :P
|
|
Just to toss my 2 cents into the fire in my personal opinion it's dangerous for a GM to expect the characters to do almost anything.
Lots of GM's have stories about their party doing things when they'd expected them to do the complete opposite. Handing over artifacts to the bad guy because they just asked for it, running when they should have fought, expecting spell casters to have that one particular spell, challenging the big evil guy at the start of the campaign instead of later on, etc. Fun stories to tell, frustrating when they crop up.
If your players die, expect some griping, don't take it personally.
Personally I think that the DC for identifying certain monsters should be low, but the DC for knowing the abilities and weaknesses might be much higher. So you might tell the PCs "This is a Storm Giant, they're relatively well-known creatures, but you haven't talked to anybody who knows their weaknesses, because those who are mighty enough to defeat them are rare."
Also, I think it's important to be consistent in this. Don't just put one monster you intend for the PCs to run from in the entire campaign (assuming player characters' actions is another problem). If you have such a monster once there should be more of them every so often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a frequent user of custom monsters. When I'm not using custom monsters I also frequently reskin monsters so that my players can't just say "Oh, an otyugh, I know how to deal with that."
If the party has a good shot at recognizing a monster, I'll use a standard monster type, so my games are still full of goblins, trolls, orcs, dragons, drow, kobolds, etc. But when I feel the party really would have no realistic reason for recognizing a monster (especially a rare one), then I do my best to keep the players from recognizing it as well.
That means I do have to deal with "how the heck do I give the players a feeling for what they are fighting?" quite a bit, including many times when they really should have no idea until they encounter the beast.
I also create my own miniatures so even if I tried to do an exact duplicate of a monster from the bestiary, I don't pretend to be skilled enough to pull that off every time.
In our last few sessions the party ran into two rather powerful custom monsters. One was intended to be a "boss" and was designed to be a serious challenge, but beatable, and the other was designed to be a "OMG RUN!!!!" situation.
In the second case I did have an NPC with the party, which helped, but it was an NPC for whom the party had developed a serious lack of respect.
In the first case the party attempted a knowledge check on the tentacled-snake boss when they finally got a glimpse of it. This is more or less what I told them, based on a high knowledge roll by the party bard:
"There are rumors and legends that you have stumbled into about great horned serpents living deep in the underdark. The legends warn of their cunning and intelligence. They are known to be spellcasters and rarely are encountered alone, usually having powerful minions to do their bidding. Based on those rumors and legends you feel this is a dangerous encounter that will require your party's full resources and skills to defeat."
In the second case the party attempted a knowledge check on the demonic beings marching through the woods from a fair distance. This is more or less what I told them, based on a rather middling knowledge check by the party paladin:
"These demonic beings send a chill through your being and you recognize immediately that this challenge is well beyond your party's ability and is likely suicidal. Luckily for you they are on foot and you are mounted on horses."
Not that there never will be encounters to run from, just that they'll be designed differently, as I suggested. There may be things you're not meant to beat, to run from or to be captured by. But if you're on a quest to rescue the princess before she's sacrificed to the dark god, you don't sneak up to the balcony of the temple, look at the guards around her and decide: No, too tough, we're going home.
There has to be an assumption that most of the stuff you run into following the main thread of the campaign can be dealt with. Obviously unbeatable encounters are a...
Ah. Well honestly it's rare that I've seen encounters that are actually required to be undertaken in a very specific way. Especially by mid levels, most encounters can probably be avoided or bypassed if you're trying hard enough.
I admit throwing impossible encounters willy nilly is probably bad form (it's at least uninspiring and rather boring). However, even with the example of the sacrificial princess and big bad guards, such a scenario might be a good time to attempt to use a scalpel rather than a hatchet. By middling levels, it should be possible for your typical party to simply stall the guards long enough to extract said princess; even if defeating all the potential enemies in the encounter is near hopeless (for example, spamming a few summoned monsters, dropping a few smokesticks and caltrops around, grab the princess, run like hell and count the sweet, sweet XP of overcoming the encounter on the way out).
I've berated a GM for not being descriptive enough; when we fought a (resolute? entropic? one of them at least) Dire Bear with permanent Rage, for almost the entire combat we were under the impression that we were fighting a normal bear. Being a roughly level 6 party, a normal bear was something we knew how to handle.
I'm not saying that Thing was bad; it was tough but not impossible. But because it was introduced as "a bear", we had no idea that it was anything more than that.
Likewise, I experienced a near-TPK in a game where a party of level 2 PCs encountered a "bear-sized rat" that turned out to have the stats of a grizzly bear.
I think it was Shattered Star or Jade Regent had one where you were expected to do a Fighting withdraw but the fight was winnable if you went in with good tactics and Party loadout.
Oh I think Skull and Shackles had one where you were expected to lead the enemies into a trap/ambush.
Now these are only options for those encounters and only worked if you had set up for them but they still exist.
I think it was Shattered Star or Jade Regent had one where you were expected to do a Fighting withdraw but the fight was winnable if you went in with good tactics and Party loadout.
Oh I think Skull and Shackles had one where you were expected to lead the enemies into a trap/ambush.
Now these are only options for those encounters and only worked if you had set up for them but they still exist.
I recall during the first battle with the army in Red Hand of Doom, the PCs used the terrain to their advantage in truly evil ways. They set up some walls, used the moat, cast enlarge person, fly and water breathing on the martial who grabbed a young red dragon and caused them to plummet into the river where a legion of undead were waiting with spears at the bottom (that red dragon got jacked very unexpectedly). Meanwhile the rest of the party was doing terrible, terrible things to the the ground troops.
The party actually wasn't really hurting at all when they left. They just decided that since they had bought the townsfolk time to escape that they would go ahead and withdraw. However, looking back on it, I think they could have probably taken most of the army with how good their tactics were at the time and their teamwork. At the least they probably would have gained enough XP and such that they might have been able to take it apart guerrilla style a bit later. They were a crazy bunch. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tactics can cause even the most unoptimized party to succeed.
Tactics can cause even the most unoptimized party to succeed.
True enough, and I'm probably one of the more vocal proponents of actually using tactics on the game.
But having said that, I've seen GMs who want an encounter to go a certain way simply negate even the best tactics through GM fiat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tactics can cause even the most unoptimized party to succeed.True enough, and I'm probably one of the more vocal proponents of actually using tactics on the game.
But having said that, I've seen GMs who want an encounter to go a certain way simply negate even the best tactics through GM fiat.
That's usually what I call a bad GM. :P
Ashiel, not sure I'd say "bad GM" so much as a GM who is either too tied to their story, or who believes that an encounter is not a "real" encounter if the party is not pushed too hard.
In fact I see lots and lots of posts here on these boards from people who obviously consider themselves to be wonderful GMs who will say without hesitation that unless the party takes a lot of HP damage and has to heal in combat, the party isn't being "challenged". When I point out that tactics can make encounters less deadly, their response is usually "not when I GM" or words to that effect.
And since being a GM is more than just running combat, it is possible that GMs who scoff at the value of tactics might still be GMs who run fun and engaging campaigns.
Then a good Tactician finds ways around that.
Or role play the chase for a while if it seems fun.
Have you tried out the chase rules? They can be pretty fun.
Then a good Tactician finds ways around that.
Not without serious meta-gaming. Which is fair sense the DM started it.
Oh no it isn't serious Metagaming. Unless my Fighter outmaneuvering his enemy in a way that he will be safe is Metagaming even when it is perfectly realistic.
Ashiel, not sure I'd say "bad GM" so much as a GM who is either too tied to their story, or who believes that an encounter is not a "real" encounter if the party is not pushed too hard.
Did I stutter? :P
I learned a long time ago that if I'm too tied to my story to the point that I effectively shift reality or deny the free will and actions of the players, I do not need to be GMing, I need to be writing a novel instead. Same with "real encounter" nonsense. If the party revs up and rises to the occasion, I'm not going to ret-con NPCs or begin buffing them or doing other forms of cheating to force my expectations.
In fact I see lots and lots of posts here on these boards from people who obviously consider themselves to be wonderful GMs who will say without hesitation that unless the party takes a lot of HP damage and has to heal in combat, the party isn't being "challenged". When I point out that tactics can make encounters less deadly, their response is usually "not when I GM" or words to that effect.
There is a difference between people who consider themselves wonderful GMs and those who are actually wonderful GMs. I'm probably not even a wonderful GM, but I know a bad GM when I see it. Cheating is bad. Most people learn that early in life.
And since being a GM is more than just running combat, it is possible that GMs who scoff at the value of tactics might still be GMs who run fun and engaging campaigns.
So they're passable GMs. They're terrible for being dirty cheaters who railroad, but at least they have some plot. Contrast to the GM who tries to be fair but when it comes to GMs who story telling maybe Humtpy Dumpty is beyond the scope of their storytelling skills. They're good at one thing but they reek of bad GM elsewhere. Maybe they just need some practice, or a bath. In either case one is the mark of a bad GM. Possessing both flaws means you fail as a GM entirely (because if you can find someone who wants to sit through your railroaded god-mode cheat-fest and isn't at least receiving some measure of entertainment elsewhere then you are actually a Sorcerer who's charmed the players :P).
Bad GMing is bad GMing.
Cayden Cailean
A good GM finds ways to negate them via the rules. :)
Agreed.
That would make intimidate a very powerful skill.
Yeah--see even an elephant-sized elephant should give anyone serious pause--let alone an elephant sized predator with venom-an obvious demonic aura and probably intelligence should have your character fleeing--if your character is following the rules of normal biological beings with functioning brain stems. An 18 intelligence character who is essentially told by the GM that he should run and refuses isn't playing an 18 intelligence character. And... and...and...Elephants are huge dood!:) Have you ever seen one? You could punch one all day and it wouldn't even notice. I've had more visceral reactions from video game characters I've played. They freaking run all the time and they re-spawn at a check point! Arggh!
An elephant against any one of us, sure, an elephant would kill us. Gore with their tusk, grab us with their trunk, or simply step on us. Any one of us in this forum would be dead if we faced an elephant.
An elephant against a PC? That's an entirely different matter. A 5th level fighter can be trampled or gored by an elephant and still get up and fight. A 10th level rogue with improved evasion will always take at max half damage.
As for punching the elephant all day long, a 7th level monk could take it down in about 5 rounds just by punching (flurry of blows).
That's just a monk. Now add in a few buddies, say a fighter, a cleric (for healing), and a rogue (for sneak attack damage), and they could probably take it out in about 2 rounds. That elephant becomes much less scary. So just because something is the size of an elephant, doesn't mean it's deadly to a group of PCs.
Try not to mistake what you and I can do with what a PC can do. Any one of us in this thread would die if we had our throats ripped open. In Pathfinder, that's not even an option. Heck, a character can take a called shot to the head with an arrow and expect to be able to keep fighting. Us normal folk? Not a chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fudging to keep it interesting or keep a TPK from happening are one thing. But Fudging it so your Sorcerer 20 Human Lich Boss can survive to hopefully kill a PC? Not Kosher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fudging to keep it interesting or keep a TPK from happening are one thing. But Fudging it so your Sorcerer 20 Human Lich Boss can survive to hopefully kill a PC? Not Kosher.
A real man's death comes in the form of an x4 attack of opportunity critical hit. Accept no substitutes! :P