Often the PC are placed in a situation - e.g. a second level party fighting a CR 15 dragon.
For every time I am told, it is too tough to go somewhere, there are just as many times that tells me that's where I go to find the adventure. Saying something is dangerous is often just chumming the waters for characters. Adventures hat only have monsters that the players CAN defeat adds to this.
Using knowledge probably does not work as the earlier example would require the character to roll a 25 DC knowledge to get knowledge of what the monster is. Even being a dragon does not suffice as there are lvl 1-3 CR dragon encounters.
Should there not being a skill or some common sense ability that tell me I have nope hope vs. this monster or this high level character.
Thoughts?
Zendar
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This could probably be the result of a knowledge check. Say set DC 10 you get the vague idea of how powerful it is. So even if you cannot determine its weaknesses or what it is you know that you should probably run away. Honestly though when this situation comes up when I GM i just straight up tell my players that it is obvious that attacking the dragon is a bad idea. Not everything needs to be a mechanic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Often the PC are placed in a situation - e.g. a second level party fighting a CR 15 dragon.
For every time I am told, it is too tough to go somewhere, there are just as many times that tells me that's where I go to find the adventure. Saying something is dangerous is often just chumming the waters for characters. Adventures hat only have monsters that the players CAN defeat adds to this.
Using knowledge probably does not work as the earlier example would require the character to roll a 25 DC knowledge to get knowledge of what the monster is. Even being a dragon does not suffice as there are lvl 1-3 CR dragon encounters.
Should there not being a skill or some common sense ability that tell me I have nope hope vs. this monster or this high level character.
Thoughts?
Zendar
This won't get solved unless you change the mentality of your players, something that in-game rules won't solve. Players shouldn't be so meta-gamey and think the GM will always tailor encounters to be defeated through combat. Maybe the players can parlay with the Dragon instead of fight it (though that presents its own problems), maybe the players can just avoid it (but good luck with the senses it has). Or maybe, the players come to the realization that certain monsters are above their paygrade, and cut their losses before being a snack that goes well with ketchup.
I would seriously consider having PCs get warnings about big bad monsters they aren't supposed to fight and see if they have any sense of prudency, and if they don't need the warnings, have them be the victims of the Dragon. If the PCs want to continue with new characters, have the same NPC warn them about some foolish adventurers who failed fighting a Dragon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's the way I've handled it in the past, as well. I offer a spontaneous knowledge check, if the creature is legendarily strong, then I ensure the check is so low it is almost unfailable. On success, I give them a brief idea of a legendary feat this particular creature was known for (say, razing an entire village protected by 20 elite Crown's Guard).
For less well-known creatures, I might give a hint by suggesting an emotion they are struck by -- say, a hint of terror down their spine when seeing the creature, a wave of revulsion that leaves their knees a bit unsteady without a saving throw. It doesn't give mechanical penalties, but it is a clear warning that their subconscious (i.e. Me, the GM) gives them that this fight might be beyone their abilities. I won't outright tell them they should run because
A) You should never take away player agency unless there is a mechanical reason (enchantment spell of some type, etc.)
B) Never discount the improbable happening. I have seen a Vampire in AD&D taken out by a rebounded lightning bolt from a level 3 thief with a javelin of lightning he stole; I have seen an Infernal Adult Dragon taken out by a critical hit on a high-damage dice spell; I have seen a bard with a +30 Diplomacy fast-talk an evil high-level fighter into a parley that everyone walked away from. If they have the guts to stick around, they either pull out a dice-miracle sometimes and beat the odds... or they die and start new characters, and learn about sandbox challenges.
Either way, I give them a heads-up about lop-sided encounters, and they learn a valuable lesson about being bold in f20 RPGs.
I think this is an interesting dilemma and one that I see parties handle very badly when the tables are turned. Maybe the dragon has no reason to kill them because there is a better use for the PCs alive and it can easily restrain them and give them an alternative to death. Having more monsters in the world that have agendas bigger than "kill everything" allows more opportunities for recurring villains, and might also help inspire PCs to consider not killing foes that they can easily vanquish as well, especially if they get used to thinking about ways that a defeated enemy can because a more useful ally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't sound like a needed mechanic so much as needed GM advice. A knowledge check should be able to insinuate if and how a party is outclassed, but not dictate the response of the party to the challenge. what
I think this is an interesting dilemma and one that I see parties handle very badly when the tables are turned. Maybe the dragon has no reason to kill them because there is a better use for the PCs alive and it can easily restrain them and give them an alternative to death. Having more monsters in the world that have agendas bigger than "kill everything" allows more opportunities for recurring villains, and might also help inspire PCs to consider not killing foes that they can easily vanquish as well, especially if they get used to thinking about ways that a defeated enemy can because a more useful ally.
Unicore makes a great point, too. Side plots will sometimes suggest themselves that can take a large failure and turn it from a pure failure to a new challenge that has interesting story implications.
Once, a party in a game decided to raid a remote fire giant encampment. They were vastly overmatched, and two of the characters went down but not dead. I decided that the giant's priest happened to be searching for an artifact holy to his tribe, so it was a perfect time to strike a deal with the party via the two captives. He took all their belongings, and struck a deal for their group to retrieve the artifact in exchange for a truce and return of their gear. (It was a 5e game, so the gear loss was hurtful and humiliating, but not so hurtful that they were defenseless.)
In the end, we got a much greater story out of a random encounter, and they group remembers the encounter vividly to this day, two years later.
This doesn't sound like a needed mechanic so much as needed GM advice. A knowledge check should be able to insinuate if and how a party is outclassed, but not dictate the response of the party to the challenge. what
I don't think anyone has suggested the GM dictate player actions. This is more a question of how the GM relays information to the party in a situation where the RAW for knowledge checks would be too high a DC for the players to gain information.
Wow, thanks for the great feedback.
I guess what I looking for is some hint from the DM or the DM telling the player this is not going to turn out well for the party if they fight.
I do not want to remove the players ability to act or make choices, as long as they are willing to live with the consequences.
I really like the idea of saying the player know somehow either via a feeling or a auto low knowledge check that tells them this is beyond our ability.
What I was looking for was how to convey this to the character/pc without just telling them "don't do it, you'll die". What in the pc's senses, feelings or emotions tells them this.
Zendar
I don't think anyone has suggested the GM dictate player actions. This is more a question of how the GM relays information to the party in a situation where the RAW for knowledge checks would be too high a DC for the players to gain information.
I'm reading the OP statements a bit harshly then? A mechanic to outright tell players to "run away" or flat out "you have no hope" sounds less to me description than instruction. Not by the GM, but by the game itself.
I'm reading the suggestion on the table to have the player roll dice or trigger an ability and find out comparative power levels outright like they had Dragonball Z scouters (hyperbole there, naturally) or perhaps like the skulls that show up by an enemy in Fallout to let you know without question how dead you are about to be.
Basically not the GM showing, but the game system telling.
Wow, thanks for the great feedback.
I guess what I looking for is some hint from the DM or the DM telling the player this is not going to turn out well for the party if they fight.
I do not want to remove the players ability to act or make choices, as long as they are willing to live with the consequences.
I really like the idea of saying the player know somehow either via a feeling or a auto low knowledge check that tells them this is beyond our ability.
What I was looking for was how to convey this to the character/pc without just telling them "don't do it, you'll die". What in the pc's senses, feelings or emotions tells them this.
Zendar
I'd say never directly tell players what to do as that removes agency, but common sense shouldn't require a roll.
As a GM it's your job to describe everything the PCs perceive in the world through your narration which can be pretty tough. If you feel like the PCs should know that the dragon is a foe beyond their ability there is nothing wrong with simply telling the players that that is something they perceive. Best practice would be to do so through powerful narration and vivid imagery but realistically unless you're an all star storyteller that's not going to get the point across all the time and in my opinion it is better to error on the side of giving players all the information the PCs should know.
|
If the information would be considered common knowledge, then the GM can either just flat out tell the players, "you think this is a bad idea" or make them roll a low DC knowledge check (like 5 or 10).
For stuff like liches, where the average adventurer may not be able to tell the difference between a real threat and a common zombie, it's less clear.
TBH, that's the kind of roll that the biggest the difference LVL/CR, the easier I would make the roll. It's way easier to see the difference in power when it's overwhelming.
I would probably make the DC = 10 + CR - ABS( CR - CLVL), and make it a variable result, like, you over/under evaluate the threat by ~20% for each step of "5" that you missed (missed by 5 or less? You over/under evaluate the CR 20 by 4, missed by 10? you think he's 12 or 28)... I'd probably just give a semi-random appropriate answer though, 20% might be a bit big in some circumstances (and weird to calculate... Over evaluation of a CR11 by 80% could give 19 as an answer... If teh player is lvl 10 and he was just unlucky on his roll, that would make them run away from a perfectly viable fight).
EDIT: BTW, I would make that a Sense Motive or appropriate Knowledge check. I'd also probably add the CHA of the monster if it tries to hide its power, and remove CHA if it tries to show its power?
Also, I would change the "10" for a 5 if it's a very common OR known monster, like a goblin, an human, or the Jabberwock. (Or if I really want the players to find its power... but I might just say it without a roll in that case)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only way I can see this working as a mechanic, would be a morale/fear mechanic - which has pros and cons.
Pro: easier way to determine when the lowly npc mooks high tale it from your heroes. Solves the issue in this thread by more easily allowing the GM to populate the world, not necessarily worrying about encounters being level appropriate.
Con: by enforcing a fear mechanic, you take away player agency. Some don't like this happening for any reason, but with the occasional spell, it's a bit less often than the risk of it happening during any encounter.
To me, non-magical fear would be a great mechanic, but it does lead to much grittier play.
Darn, my edit window has passed. In my initial post, I probably should have worded point A) as "A GM should never" rather than "you should never..." which is the more neutral phrasing I intended.
I find that presentation is everything...
In Wrath of the Righteous, the opening set piece includes
Anyone thinking their level one PC should run TOWARD that fight? Natural selection in action...
I would run it as a knowledge check.
I've always let a DC 10 identify the creature type and the standard information for that creature type, like:
An animal possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
Low-light vision.
Alignment: Always neutral.
Treasure: None.
Proficient with its natural weapons only. A non-combative herbivore treats its natural weapons as secondary attacks. Such attacks are made with a –5 penalty on the creature’s attack rolls, and the animal receives only 1/2 its Strength modifier as a damage adjustment.
Proficient with no armor unless trained for war. (See FAQs and Handle Animal Skill.)
Animals breathe, eat, and sleep.An animal has the following features (unless otherwise noted).
d8 Hit Die.
Base attack bonus equal to 3/4 total Hit Dice (medium progression).
Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.
Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for animals: Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, and Swim.
So that in the case of a dragon they would correctly identify that it is a creature with the dragon subtype and know things about dragons in general.
After that if they can't correctly identify the creature it should be a clue to the players that the DC is so high they didn't successfully identify it. Which would mean (typically) it's a much higher CR than their level.
And if they do identify it correctly knowledge of a creature should reasonably include a relevant "Danger Factor" that the person who identifies it knows the relative power level between themselves and the creature. Allowing them to know it's substantially more powerful than them (or the the party) and likely would be unable to defeat.
I mean, I know I can reasonably take on house cats and survive. Although I probably wont be happy about all the scratches. I also know that I can't reasonably take on something as small as even a bobcat without weapons, and would likely incur significant injury and could only effectively run away. And I also know if I try to fight a lion or tiger I will almost certainly die.
thinking further, I think a natural (read, not magically caused) fear mechanic could work in pf2e, depending on how gradual the Fear 1, Fear 2, etc mechanics are designed. If fear 1 is not all that mechanically penalizing, then it would work as a mechanical way to message the PLAYER that his character may want to back off, without forcing the issue, while still allowing something way out of the league to grant fear 3 or so that causes defensive behavior, or fear 5 that causes flight.
Replace your most overpowered enemies with orange fuzzballs to indicate to your players they should run.
Even on Paizo, F.O.E. !
But yes this sounds more like a Player and Roleplay issue than any game mechanic.
Knowledge check might work, Cleric gets message from god of "Don't you try this", Animal companion pulls at owner, etc etc.
Though usually Large powerful Enemy/Monster, is either set piece or "Rocks fall" time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mistakenly thought the mechanic mentioned in the title was about being able to disengage from an obviously impossible fight
I guess I need to create a new thread ;-)
I thought so too. The rules for disengaging to beat a retreat are non existent at the moment and mechanically running out of tactical combat faces grim odds.
No.
For GMs, this is not a mechanical issue, but a storytelling one. The lore should be baked into the player introductions and the PC interactions.
"Wow, isn't that the guy who took down an ogre with one blow."
"Yeah, he didn't even act surprised about it."
On the players' side, there shouldn't be a PC mechanic for "CR too high", there should be player wariness. If the PCs are in a world that's not tuned to their abilities, the players should know this. They should know to learn about their terrain & enemies, and know to evade creatures that are too tough. And if the creatures are coming to them, that's on the GM!
...
Should there not being a skill or some common sense ability that tell me I have nope hope vs. this monster or this high level character.
...
Take Tim the Enchanter on your adventures.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I clicked on the thread thinking this would be about chase mechanics and actually running away from big threats. That is something I think might be higher on the priority list than what the thread is about.
Things I have found my self saying when needed: "All of your insticts tell you to run away", "Every molecule of your body is frozen in abject terror", "The raw power this creatures seems to radiate seems inconceivable to you" etc.
|
It is a GM-players problem : the GM knows which encounter is supposed to be easy and which is overpowerful. The players don't
And really in PF1 an overpowerful encounter not being a TPK is 100% GM-fiat and it feels like it
Best would be that a GM who wishes to have this kind of encounters in his game clearly warns the players about the possibility before the game begins
No.
For GMs, this is not a mechanical issue, but a storytelling one. The lore should be baked into the player introductions and the PC interactions.
"Wow, isn't that the guy who took down an ogre with one blow."
"Yeah, he didn't even act surprised about it."On the players' side, there shouldn't be a PC mechanic for "CR too high", there should be player wariness. If the PCs are in a world that's not tuned to their abilities, the players should know this. They should know to learn about their terrain & enemies, and know to evade creatures that are too tough. And if the creatures are coming to them, that's on the GM!
It seems like you are saying that players should avoid fighting enemies that are too tough, but there should be know way for them to tell that enemies are too tough to fight. Since that is clearly nonsense, that is presumably not what you are actually saying, so could you explain a little more please?
_
glass.
I am saying players should avoid fighting enemies that are too tough, and that such situations shouldn't rely on a mechanic which implies there's a skill the PCs may or may not have and may or may not succeed at.
The existence of such a mechanism also implies that the onus is on the systems and isn't where it actually lies, on the GM (mostly) and the players (more than the PCs).Example, if the PCs plan to travel near the Troll Fens, the players should know to have their PCs inquire about trolls, fens, and the Troll Fens. The GM should have foreseen this, maybe even foreshadowed the dangers there beforehand, and in the case of high level areas being accessible to low level PCs, that foreshadowing should have been blunt and direct (maybe even terrifying). One trick I've used is having higher level parties (sometimes even ones that have befriended the PCs) get wiped out or disappear. The PCs then want to avenge, but know it'll have to wait, and the new power vacuum leaves the PCs room to shine.
Example
If the party is 1st, and the GM tosses a troll their way, it having wandered out of the Troll Fens, what mechanic would serve? Best case would be the GM recognizes the PCs shouldn't even close with such a threat (which they will do if the Barbarian goes before the "gal who recognizes threats"). But maybe trolls are important in setting and the GM wants one on stage early. The GM needs to have the troll (pre-combat) rend a cow or do something so brutal that the PCs know this isn't a fight, it's a chase or hint of dangers to come or a "DON'T GO IN THE FENS YET!".
If the troll rends a cow (or even a bull that's charged to little effect) and the player has their 1st level PC attack anyway, that's an earned death. (And frankly, a great way for players to understand their choices have consequences, which can make even easy choices feel rewarding.) Hmm...maybe I'll have an NPC do that for show?
If the Troll Fens isn't about wandering trolls, but troll packs, that needs to come up, likely through tavern stories, travel warnings, or by watching a troop of the king's guard ride by to counter an incursion. If the fens feature troll hordes or legendary warrior trolls, this data needs to be available to players who are wary enough to check or scout or use divinations about (which they should be since the GM should've warned them the difficulties don't scale to the party.)
Heck, the Troll Fens might even harbor a Marsh Giant secret city where trolls are abundant slaves and the ones that civilization encounters are merely the escapees. (What a great eye-opening moment that would be when the PCs finally dig deep into the fens to spy that city...from a safe distance of course.)
So in these types of settings (which Golarion arguably is, even if the APs seldom are) players & their PCs should know enough to value scouting and information gathering so they can make healthy choices as to where to adventure and what tasks are within their means.
In cases where PCs may stumble (despite doing due diligence and through no fault of their own) into insurmountable dangers, it's up to the GM to get that information into play, make such power differences blatantly obvious, allow for non-combat outs or options (like conversation, escape, or bribery), or maybe just not design such skewed encounters in supposedly CR-appropriate areas.
I'd expect such information to be in the GMing/campaign development section, but again, not as a game mechanic which might lead to false trust that such a mechanic could overcome poor GMing.
You don't tend to randomly run into adult dragons, at least not in my experience.
Usually creatures like that are known in an area.
If nothing else, legend lore spell establish CR 10 creatuers (level 11 PCs) as legendary. So any region you go into should probably have legends of such creatures/NPCs that could be obtained with a gather information check. If PCs bother to do so.
I'd definitely like some sort of way to determine if you are out classed. Having a monster too strong to fight goes against most everything the game teaches you, and there really isn't a way to tell a challenging fight from an impossible fight. And with an average combat time of 3 rounds, you don't exactly have a lot of time to figure out one from the other before it's too late.
I clicked on the thread thinking this would be about chase mechanics and actually running away from big threats. That is something I think might be higher on the priority list than what the thread is about.This. 13th Age had an interesting mechanic for it in which there were "Party actions" that the party as a whole had to agree to do. And one of them was "retreat". There wasn't much mechanically to it, but it basically allowed the players to formally signal "okay, we get out of there, take the consequences for it" and shift to narrative mode rather than playing out the details and getting half the party wiped.
There is probably an easy solution involving athletics checks and some bonuses for speed terrain, but it would be nice to have it codified. Because sometimes the enemies run away too.