|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 8:53AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2010
|
Being held prisoner by these idiotic rules. What were they thinking when they made them?
Were these deleted on the Essentials edition? Please say yes . . . There's no mention of them in any Essentials materials; just the 1st Player's Handbook (p. 180).
The DM (me) would like to delete them on the grounds that players nearly always pass them. This means that before any fight, the players get to know all about the creatures, their resistances, vulnerabilities, powers, keywords, you name it.
This totally ruins the supense, suprise, and enjoyment for everybody. Most of all the DM. It's like carefully wrapping up a present but then being forced to declare what's inside. What's the point? You find yourself not caring whether future presents are "wrapped."
A big part of the fun of being a DM is springing surprises on your buddies, but with Monster Knowledge Checks, there are no more surprises. You're reduced to presiding as players roll dice and trade numbers.
To get an idea of what I'm talking about, why don't you try sitting down and play chess with yourself? You won't get a couple of minutes into the game before realizing a profound truth about chess: its chief appeal is not mathematical elegance but the wicked thrill of springing a nasty surprise on your buddy. But without a buddy there, the game quickly becomes intolerably jejune.
Yeah, the net result is that Monster Knowledge Checks are disincentive for the DM to use his imagination. Why bother creating monsters or scouring the Monster Manuals for interesting monsters if the players are going to get to know everything in advance? In fact, what's the point of even having monsters attack with anything except their claws and tentacles? The ending has been given away for everything else.
Given my druthers, I would like to delete that table completely and make Monster Knowledge Checks impossible, or redifficulty the table at +10. But characters are protesting that they (now level 9) have made training decisions based on these rules and that such a ruling would be tantamount to punishing them for being "too good."
Which argument is not completely unfounded. However, other players are complaining that something definitely seems wrong and I'm fully on their side.
The current situation is that when a player makes a knowledge check, I just hand them the monster stat sheet and tell them to read what they think their character would know. But even this is too much of a hassle. From now on, I'm just going to photocopy all the monsters's stat blocks and give each character a sheaf of papers before every session begins. Or just email them the info the night before. That's how sick of this I am.
Game definitely seems broken. Am I the only DM who wants to rip page 180 out of the Player's Handbook? I can't find much discussion of the inanity of these rules in these forums.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 9:07AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
Given my druthers, I would like to delete that table completely and make Monster Knowledge Checks impossible, or redifficulty the table at +10. But characters are protesting that they (now level 9) have made training decisions based on these rules and that such a ruling would be tantamount to punishing them for being "too good."
Which argument is not completely unfounded. However, other players are complaining that something definitely seems wrong and I'm fully on their side.
If it's also ruining the game for other players, houserule it and let those who want to retrain knowledge skills/trade in skill boosting items.
And yes, there is mention of them in Essentials: pg. 283 of HotFK, 285 HotFL. Monster Knowledge checks are now based on the Skill DC table, with basic knowledge being a moderate DC for the level of the monster, and full knowledge a hard.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 9:15AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
May 11, 2004
|
Personally I don't think much of the tactics or enjoyment comes from them not knowing the resistances/vulnrabilities of monsters. For one a lot of monsters don't have either, so the monster knowledge check goes like this. Player: "Okay I got a 37 on my Nature check, does it have any weaknesses?" Me: "Nope, unless you count hitting it in the face with a sword until it dies"
Secondly, the monsters that DO have a resistance or vulnrability are often pretty easily guessed even without a check. I.e if it breathes fire, there's a pretty good chance its also resistant to fire. If they've fought undead more than a couple of times they have probably learned that radiant is usually good to use and necrotic bad, etc. So more often than not, the knowledge check just confirms something they already guessed.
All in all, I find that monster knowledge checks are an opportunity to to give a little bit of flavor and background "Got a 25 on your religion check eh? Well you learn that Elite orders of undead hunting paladins of Pelor would often train themselves in Lance of Faith and other such attacks in order to slay the undead") but have very little mechanical impact at all.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 9:31AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2004
|
If you are using the DCs from Rules Compendium, PCs should not be easily succeeding on a regular basis. The easy DC is, well, easy, but only gives you trivial information like name, rank and serial number. You only get the whole kit and kaboodle of information if you hit the hard DC and that isn't even a sure thing for someone trained with the right key ability.
Also, don't get caught up in the minutae. Information is rarely specific. For example, rather than give the exact specifics of a Medusa's gaze attack, you can simply say something like: "Your remember hearing that Medusa can use a gaze attack to turn enemies to stone." You certainly don't have to give numbers.
I use the information to give hints (this foe tends to deal necrotic damage, maybe you should drink a gravespawn potion), some tactical advice (this foe is very hard to pin down, even with attacks that normally would immobilize most foes), and to ease my burden (it is a lot easier for me if the PCs learn the name of the creature, so I don't have to avoid using its name when referencing it).
-SYB
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 9:33AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 14, 2009
|
If it's bothering you that much, just make a house rule that monster knowledge checks don't exist. You're the DM.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 10:04AM
#6
|
|
|
There's actually been enough debate about the techniques around monster knowledge checks that it has spawned at least one DDI article a while back. The upshot of that was "the rules don't say you have to provide the PCs with all the numbers, nor that the DM is locked into always using the standard DCs or giving out all the information indicated if the situation justifies something less." Beyond that there are different styles of revelation. You could give out all the numbers, sort of 'handing the player the stat block' but you can also simply describe the features the PCs know about in general terms.
Beyond that the concept of monster knowledge was to avoid 'gotcha' situations where the players can't determine what sort of tactics to use because they lack sufficient information to make reasonable decisions. Now, maybe in some styles of play you want more mystery, which is fine, just up the DCs or give out only very vague hints. In other styles of play people are more focused on tactical fights where they enjoy working out how to use their PCs capabilities to best effect and the excitement comes more from seeing how to match yourselves against the monster's abilities. In that kind of game the players will probably enjoy having more detailed information.
There are other considerations too. Most experienced players will pretty quickly figure out what most typical monsters do. They are likely DMs themselves or have the books/DDI, so it isn't as if most monsters remain secret for long. You can certainly easily change things around in 4e, so this is less of a consideration than in say 1e where the MM was the only source of monsters for years and most players had it pretty much memorized by 1980 or so. Still, there's a dose of practicality in there. Why punish players that haven't happened to have read the book? Why benefit players who have? Knowledge checks tend to put players of all experience levels on more of an even footing and eliminate some of the meta-gaming that otherwise is encouraged by the players researching the rules. It provides something of a reasonable path by which player knowledge can be ascribed to the character, and by which character's inherent experience with the world and specific areas of knowledge can apply in a concrete way.
Obviously these things are all highly dependent on the type of game, the players level of experience, goals, etc. It certainly isn't unreasonable to modify these checks where it interferes with the fun in a given game. No rule is perfect and these kinds of rules often don't mesh perfectly with all games. The same can be said of treasure distribution rules, wealth, crafting, etc. which are hard to make fit all 'sizes' of games.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 10:54AM
#7
|
|
|
As a DM I call every shot.
You have done Fire damage, but It resist almost all of it. Resist : 15.
Same way for vulnerable.
For knowledge check I put more detail on what could realy mess with players: Stun, swallow, immobilize and so.
I also give full defense stat, You hit. You need to hit: 38 Ref.
Player can adjust their power as they know the Def of their opponents.
Same way when a monster spot a weak Def on the player side I dont hesitate to strike on it more.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 10:56AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2009
|
I definitely think handing out stat blocks is the wrong way to go. I wouldn't use numbers at all. Use this as an opportunity to set the mood and build anticipation.
Rather than saying, "It has a bite attack that does 3d10+8 poison damage," say something like, "Its jagged fangs drip with poison as it gnashes its teeth in anticipation for its next meal."
If It's defenses are AC 20, Fort 16, Ref 19, Will 15, say something like, "It can move quickly to avoid attacks, but it doesn't seem so tough and has a weak mind."
Radiant vulnerability: "It flinches in the light of your (light source)"
etc. etc.
Give them clues and hints. It still gives them an advantage, but doesn't give everything away. Knowledge checks can be a lot of fun if you enjoy describing monsters and building tension for the fight.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 11:39AM
#9
|
|
|
op its you that have it wrong, you do not give away all that info, though there are magic items that do. if you look at any mm, a monster knowledge check really only gives a little lore. even a hard dc
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jun 11, 2011 - 12:06PM
#10
|
|
|
Why is it bad for your players characters to know about monsters? If they roll a good knowledge check that means the character has learned about the monster. They shouldn't always be clueless.
Besides, like other posts have said, you are the DM. If you don't want them to know, get rid of the checks altogether.
|
|
|
