Way back in the 80's, when I first got serious about playing AD&D, I was introduced to that wretched type of monster, the "gotcha" monster. The doppleganger. The Mimic. That plant monster that looks like a cute bunny rabbit on a tree stump. Gas spores that look like Beholders. Cloakers.
It's quite the tradition, and many of these creatures still exist in Pathfinder. And I hate them all, so very, very much.
When I run my games, I want to let my players make informed decisions. I don't want them finding themselves over their heads because they didn't know a monster had a strange immunity or defense, or that had a particularly lethal attack.
This is why I always allow them to roll monster knowledge. But after awhile, even though some of my players have invested in knowledge skills, I feel the die rolling to find out what a monster can do slows down play.
And they can still fail, and find themselves screwed over when they discover "yes, it's an animated object, so it has hardness, not DR", or "oh the monster is immune to that spell", while they're being beaten into a bloody pulp.
I've actually toyed with eliminating monster knowledge and just telling them what they need to know. But still reward people for actually having the skills to know about the monsters. I'm just not sure how to do that, or if I should even try.
So I'm curious how other GM's have, or would, handle this topic.
Thank you in advance for any replies!
One of my GMs, after a knowledge check is rolled, informs the roller how many questions can be asked about the monster. "You can ask two questions." "OK. What is it immune or resistant to?" "Does it have spell resistance?"
To me that sense of the unknown, that chance of completely blowing that spell is what makes the game fun.
Also, there is a whole group of character builds about knowing things, all things even monster things.
We handle it as intended (I think): a PC can ask and make his check, if he wants to, but there is no automatic info.
Players remember monster stats after a while anyway and don't need a check to know that monster X is immune to fire. So the frequency of checks tends to sink over time.
I'm pretty liberal with Knowledge checks as a GM. Players still need to make checks, but they can ask for specific information or let the GM choose information that could be useful for the PCs. Even if the player fails their check by a few points, I usually drop some clues from which a smart player can gain some insights (for example mentioning that linnorms have ties to the First World, allowing thoughtful players to deduce the creature's DR).
I also don't mind if a spellcaster makes decisions based on a creature's type (which is often fairly obvious). It may seem as metagaming, but if you think about it, creature resistances and saves should be on the curriculum of any spellcasting adventurer. I just can't imagine a moderately competent wizard teaching their pupil a sleep spell without telling them how to achieve the best results.
Rysky- well both, really. Basically I was curious if there was a better way to handle monster knowledge that makes sure the players get the information they need to avoid a "gotcha!" moment, speeds up play, and still rewards investment in knowledges.
I know, that's a pretty tall order, and it's probably not possible to do all of that.
Mulgar- there's a style, if memory serves, and I know the Lore Warden gets bonuses for identifying monsters. I have no doubt there are others. As to the chance of being surprised...I can respect that. But I really despise monsters that are designed with the idea that the whole thing that makes them a challenge is their unknown nature. It takes the ability to make informed, tactical decisions right out of the players hands.
Take the mimic. Even if you realize it's a creature of some kind, if you don't know what it is, your melee can suddenly find themselves forced to rely on secondary, inferior weapons because their main weapons are glued to the thing...well I understand a lot of people are ok with that, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not a fan, but that's just me.
rainzax- probably the best way to go, if I want to speed up the process, and remove the element of chance. Of course, players love to roll dice, so it might not go over well, but I can try it.
Sometimes, a monster's appearance at least hints towards the abilities it can use. In the case of the mimic, I'd say there is nothing wrong with telling players that it seems to be covered in an adhesive once they see the creature in its natural form (most likely, there is dirt and grit sticking to it, maybe even a few small insects). With a bit of foreshadowing, the things you spring on them don't come of nowhere, and the monsters are still going to push the players out of their comfort zone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... if you dislike gotcha monsters when you're running the game... just don't use gotcha monsters?
Milo v3- I don't have a problem with presenting my players with a problem to be solved, even in combat. How you go about dealing with a creature with an unusual ability that prevents your normal tactics from working is a challenge and overcoming challenges can be rewarding experiences.
But giving someone a puzzle to solve without telling them there is a puzzle at all? I don't like that approach. It's kind of like how traps are terrible. You notice them, and then someone can either use a skill or some creative plan to bypass them. Or you don't notice them, and you take damage or some other penalty because...you failed a check. One of those two scenarios is fun, the other is just an acid meringue pie to the face.
Come to think about it, I rarely use traps in my games either, lol.
Sideromancer- there is a lot about the game that seems to actively require or encourage metagame thinking. I've found, however, that giving the players more information means they don't have to metagame, and it's a more enjoyable experience.
It's not really solving a puzzle, if you tell them the answer.
Is simply having the answer enough? I mean, just because you know it's a medusa doesn't mean there aren't tactical decisions to be made on how to defeat it. Do you use magic to boost your saving throws, and trust in a high save? Unload on it with the best offensive magic you have? Carefully avert your gaze? Or even wear a blindfold? Figure out how to keep it more than 30' away while you plink at it with ranged abilities?
Dig in your pack to find those smoked goggles you bought five sessions ago? I mean, you'd be doing all this stuff anyways, but I think it's better to have the party figuring that out from the get go, not after the Rogue becomes a stone statue.