DM Knowledge, Critter Cleverness, and Napoleon

[DracoSuave]

Which power is this that doubles OA damage?

 

[Saeviomagy]

In the example given, I would play the foes as knowing the effect of the power. They would be extra wary about drawing AoOs.

The players should know that the foes know the results of effects. They should keep that in mind when they use them.

In this scenario, the power that you describe is NOT intended to make the party do extra damage - it's solely intended to lock down your foes, ensuring that they will not take some action that provokes. Ideally a player should use it when, say, there is a risk that a striker is about to break combat with the party defender and go after the party controller. Or alternately when they have some move that is going to force a foe to retreat (ie - cause fear).

 

[Starfox]

I had an inverse situation in my game this week. The PC Rogue used Riposte Strike against a Dire Rat and was the only character to hit that rat during that round of combat. I felt that I had to attack the Rogue with the Dire Rat when its turn came around because the rat would naturally attack the closest and most recent foe to damage it...

I was in this situation as a player, only I was fighting a rat swarm. In order to avoid its automatic attack, I slided away, and it promptly ran away from me to engage another. Completely ok by the rules, but they were rats, and a swarm. I felt pretty cheated.

 

[WhatGravitas]

Example: Player A says, "Okay, I invoke this special power that lets me get double damage on any opportunity attack for the next round." DM says, "Ok cool." and proceeds to move the bad guys in such a way as to not invite opportunity attacks.

This means that the power worked perfectly well - it hindered the enemy and forced him to take decisions the enemy wouldn't have taken otherwise.

Whether that's helping the user of the power or not, is rather a matter of skill in using the power.

If you're in a hallway 3 squares wide and the opponents now don't risk moving past the user of the power to reach the PCs behind him, then you just used the power to make yourself a 3x3 square of blocking - it had a good effect.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Quartz]

This is actually a simple way to play intelligent foes. Most of us aren't geniuses but there are many monsters that are. The thing to do, though, is to agree with the players that you'll be using this style of play.

 

[AtomicPope]

Example: Player A says, "Okay, I invoke this special power that lets me get double damage on any opportunity attack for the next round." DM says, "Ok cool." and proceeds to move the bad guys in such a way as to not invite opportunity attacks.

As many astute posters pointed out the DM should Roleplay the monsters. When I play Brutes that can attack out of turn (Berserkers, Bloodragers, Boneshards, just to name a few 'B' rated monsters) I'll intentionally draw AoO because they're reckless. I also like to play undead as "being out for blood." The fluff is their craving for life energy is strong, therefore they attack bloodied characters. Even if it's not the best thing tactically (and their Int is low) they attack bloodied characters. It gives the monsters a different feel. Now the players know if someone is injured Zombies will try and eat you

Should the players keep their conditions like this a secret from the DM? This has the mindset that the DM is the "Opponent", which, like Schroedinger's Cat, is both true and not true. My answer is no, I do not think that conditions should be secret from the DM. I trust the group that I play with, and I do not think that they would be dishonest, but the way that D&D is structured, the DM is the final arbiter of the rules and the actions in the game world. I think that on the pro side, having things like this a secret from the guy who is "playing" the monsters does increase the likelihood of true impartiality, it also, I believe, would create more rules discussions and difficulties - for instance, if a monster has a power that makes it immune to some certain form of attack.

The experiment of Shroedinger's Cat brings up an interesting point though. The only way to determine whether or not the DM is an "Opponent" is to play the game. For many gamers that is too late. This is a problem with any game, not just 4e.

I am rarely impartial when I DM because I want to test the players. For example, in a recent game I gave the players a tough encounter (1 level higher in exp with two monsters that were 4 levels higher and two 2 level higher monsters). The "scout" classes were able to spot the monsters at full range (20 squares away) and remain undetected. I gave them explicit information that they could dart behind bushes to get close but if they failed their Stealth role they wouldn't act in the Surprise round. This set up was intentional. There are two scouts so I had two different trees to hide behind. But that's not all.

When the monsters came out I set them up in position to be hit with daily powers (like Splitting the Tree and Acid Orb). I do that so new players can get a feeling for their characters. Unfortunately neither character used their Daily and the party was hurtin' bad.

So my impartiality is feigned. If I see a player having a difficult time I'll give them some opportunities to shine. I won't tell them because that takes away all of their glory. For smart players I just let them do their thing and not step on their toes. Roleplayers like plot hooks so I plant Easter Eggs throughout the adventure (giving Quest rewards for following leads).

I suppose the one thing I don't do is send in the Uber NPC to help everyone out and save the day. I hate that crap. Let the players play the game, not the NPC's.

D&D4 works a little differently than previous editions. This one is all about powers. So it raises the question in my mind of "How do these powers get represented in the game?" I don't want every power use to involve a 30 minute discussion about whether the fighter gives obvious signs that he is doing some super-smashing-power-thingy or not.

True. I try to limit "rules discussions" by making snap decisions and writing down questions for later. It's better to discuss them after the game. All elaborate descriptions I save for the effects and setting. When describing the surroundings I embelish. When a PC or Monster performs admirably it warrants a lengthy narration. I don't consider rules worth the game time unless it's serious to the outcome.

 

[Gort]

This is actually a simple way to play intelligent foes. Most of us aren't geniuses but there are many monsters that are. The thing to do, though, is to agree with the players that you'll be using this style of play.

This is probably quite true. The nerdy nature of D&D means that it's generally people of above-average intelligence who play it, but none of us can really approximate genius-level intelligence. It makes sense that an extremely intelligent opponent would be able to deduce stuff that he "shouldn't know".

That said, I don't tell my players that (for example) a skeleton warrior gets a bonus on his opportunity attacks, so I wouldn't alter monster behaviour to take into account powers the players are using that don't directly affect the monster when they're used. Just like the skeleton warrior's speed of the dead power might come as a nasty shock to the players, the example player's power of doubling opportunity attack damage might come as a nasty shock to the monsters.

 

[DracoSuave]

Depends on the monster, but sometimes I'd have the monsters move around, and sometimes I'd have them fall for it.


And sometimes I'd let the player roll bluff vs monsters' insight.... cause that's -dramatic-.... and they can feel like they not only got to use their cool ability, but they tricked a monster into falling for it. And that makes the game more fun for them.


dun dun DUUUUUUUUUN!

 

[xjermx]

Which power is this that doubles OA damage?

Sorry, the power was just made up off the top of my head. It was just to serve as an example.

Thanks for all of the feedback.

 

[Lauberfen]

I think the key thing to take from this thread is that it's cool to have monsters act in a particular way, which makes sense for them. It's more difficult with monsters who are around average int, but with some of the examples, like zombies attacking bloodied characters, this is really characterful, and actually might apply to other monsters, like animals and beasts as well. So I think the important thing is to have monsters behave consistently, so the party really gets a flavour for them (and this is one of the best bits of DMing in 4th, that flavour is built in). This also means that the players will actually become better at fighting the monsters the more they encounter them, rather than having to decide how clever to act themselves- while it's the DM's job to act stupid sometimes, it's not fun for the players.

Of course, with so much about the monsters having changed, my players will know really very little about what I throw at them, which adds to the fun even more. I'm certainly going to go away and think about trademark tactics for the monsters I'm planning to use.