Do foes and PCs understand consequences?

[Final Attack]

I asked this once before, but I need a little further clarification.

Monsters understanding
I see 3 lines of thought a DM can use when controling monsters, and particularly when their actions will result in damage or risk of damage -

1. The monster does not know/understand the consequences and thus the danger is ignored through their actions.
2. Understands fully the consequences and avoids it if possible.
3. Only avoids the danger if intelligent enough to understand danger (eg. wolves will attack last/hardest person to hit them regardless)

Now lets look at the types of At-Wills that players have:

Rogue - Riposte Strike - if target attacks you before the next turn make an attack
Warlock - Dire Radiance - if target gets closer on his turn he takes damage
Paladin - Divine Challenge - if target does not include you in his attack he takes damage
Fighter - combat challenge - Whenever a marked target adjacent to you shifts or preforms an attack that doesn't include you make an OoA.
Warlord - Vipers Strike - If the target shifts before the start of your next turn it provokes an OoA from an ally of your choice.

(If I forgot any please add to this thread)

Now the way I run the game currently is:
1. Riposte Strike, and Viper's strike are not understood by the foe. Unless they have some superior understanding or insight.

2. Enemies always understand consequences of divine challenge and dire radiance.

3. Intelligent enemies will understand that the fighter gets a free hit when they shift. Stupid enemies learn this after it occurs once.

It would be good to have an understanding of how these powers work consistantly so that players will know if they are worth chosing. How do you run these encounters?

 

[Kordeth]

As stated on p. 57 of the PHB, creatures automatically know the effects of any power used on them.

 

[unan oranis]

I've been calling them as I see them.

for example:

Riposte Strike - a rogue or elite warrior would recognise it, but not a wolf

fighters combat challenge - a lesser, but still trained and/or experienced warrior would probably recognise it, maybe a tiger or wolf, not a dog or an arcane specialist...


The point I think is so that a player does get to use his powers, and enemies "fall" for their tricks commonly, but there are definatly equals out there for them to fight too.

Same goes for the monsters special powers... I personally might hint at special capabilities depending on the situation and characters involved, but mostly the players learn through experience.

Technically they and/or the monsters could roll lore checks but it seems a bit cumbersome for an exciting combat (and possibly overpowered too).

 

[mach1.9pants]

...my PC doesn't she has an Int of 5!

 

[Hypersmurf]

As stated on p. 57 of the PHB, creatures automatically know the effects of any power used on them.

Which makes certain powers... never actually behave the way they're described.

Consider Dance of Death, Rogue Attack 27.

What it says is "If the target attacks you, he hits himself instead. And if you're an Artful Dodger, he gets a bonus on the roll!"

What actually happens is "The target knows that attacking you has no possible benefit and potentially severe consequences, so it doesn't attack you. As a result, being an Artful Dodger is meaningless!"

The power could just as easily have been worded "The target cannot make a melee attack against you before the end of your next turn", with no Artful Dodger special line.

-Hyp.

 

[Runestar]

fighters combat challenge - a lesser, but still trained and/or experienced warrior would probably recognise it, maybe a tiger or wolf, not a dog or an arcane specialist...

I think the rules are meant to apply equally to all foes, so even an animal with int1 is supposed to understand the consequences of ignoring divine challenge. And you are expected to find some way of rationalizing/justifying it even if it normally would not make sense, if the FAQ is any precedent. For example, in the case of the wolf, you could say that its innate animalistic cunning alerts it to the fact that something is amiss.

Or at least, the game seems to assume that all the foes are controlled by the DM who is in a position to make an informed decision as to who best to attack under such circumstances, regardless of how intelligent the foes are themselves.

 

[unan oranis]

I think the rules are meant to apply equally to all foes, so even an animal with int1 is supposed to understand the consequences of ignoring divine challenge. And you are expected to find some way of rationalizing/justifying it even if it normally would not make sense, if the FAQ is any precedent. For example, in the case of the wolf, you could say that its innate animalistic cunning alerts it to the fact that something is amiss.

Or at least, the game seems to assume that all the foes are controlled by the DM who is in a position to make an informed decision as to who best to attack under such circumstances, regardless of how intelligent the foes are themselves.

Yes, well as far as combat goes you allways want very clear specific rules. From this point of view, I would agree with page 57 of the phb.

I don't think theres any need to rationalize it though... it's an unapologetic game mechanic.

Played without input from the dungeon master, all of the rules add up to just a miniature combat board game. But where that game ends and dungeons and dragons begins is when the dm role plays your adversary.

But in "fake" player vs player duels or dnd miniature style combats you do need a specific rule. Your group of monsters vs my group of monsters, no matter how eclectic and mismatched work in perfect tactical harmony and are 100% aware of the exact wording of the enemies abilities. Fair enough.

Totally making the next wolf I run "smell" trouble...

 

[firesnakearies]

There's a reason why the game has no set rules about deciding who or how a monster attacks. There's no "aggro" mechanic, and it's a very good thing.

The DM is supposed to roleplay the monsters appropriate to their nature, just as the PCs are supposed to roleplay their characters appropriately. There are a vast variety of different monster types, personalities, levels of intellect, bravery or cowardice, arrogance or caution, grasp of tactics or surrender to instinct.

Should a mindless zombie fight the same way as a drow assassin? I think not. Should an angry owlbear make the same kind of choices in battle as a cunning succubus? Certainly not!

My rule is that every creature is always aware of the effects of powers used against them, but not all of them process that information in the same way.

- Mindless undead or mindless constructs are just going to continue swinging away at whatever's in front of them, and ignore any other enemies.

- Many beasts and brutish creatures with an animalistic intellect are going to attack whoever hurts them the most, whoever angers them the most, and in many cases may ignore the possible dangers of an action because their immediate, primal drive to do it right then outweighs the dim awareness that it's dangerous for them to do so. When they are badly injured, they will either go into a frenzy and fight recklessly to the death, or try like mad to get away, depending on the type of critter.

- Mastermind-type enemies, like aboleths, liches, beholders, mind flayers, and drow spellcasters are almost definitely going to do whatever they can to avoid any consequence attacks, and will generally try to get AWAY from melee-types, and incapacitate them quickly or use them against the rest of the party, if possible.

- Hobgoblin archers would surely maneuver to avoid opportunity attacks, but the ogre bashers with them probably wouldn't be very deterred by them, at least until they'd taken a few of those free hits.

- Intelligent undead might gun for whoever is dealing radiant damage, even at the risk of exposing themselves to other enemies.

- Trolls will ABSOLUTELY go after anyone hitting them with fire with a vengeance, not caring about those sword blows which they can regenerate, but extremely concerned about that deadly fire and making a beeline to end its source.

- A lot of creatures which are very intelligent are also very powerful and old and extremely arrogant, so even though they fully grasp the implications of ignoring the punishing powers, they consider themselves so much mightier than these petty mortals that they do as they wish, and think "let the little man tickle me with his sword!" Dragons, Balors, Pit Fiends, and the like might fall into this category. I can't see a Balor who really wants to tear the cleric's head off stopping because he's so scared of taking a free hit from some inconsequential fighter or rogue.

- In many cases, it really is smarter to deal with the casters first, as the monsters know that they'll lose if they just beat on the plate-clad dwarf and let his friends toss fireballs and healing spells with impunity. So it can be a calculated risk to suffer a bit more at the hands of some foes in order to give appropriate priority to eliminating the most dangerous threats. Any kind of monster of even mediocre intelligence is likely to make this call, unless they're driven by arrogance, rage, personal hatred, or honor.

- On the other hand, there are a lot of monsters which just aren't smart enough or savvy enough or which don't really care about defending themselves. They'll eat that retaliatory damage every round if they have to, but they won't stop pursuing whatever path their one-tracked mind has focused in on.


Bottom line is, it needs to be a case-by-case basis. As GM, make every enemy unique and its choices logically consistent with its nature. Don't punish the PCs by having every single monster react with perfect tactics to these powers and always do the smartest thing to avoid harm, and don't punish the players by having every single monster totally ignore abilities which are meant to partially control them.

Every monster is different. You can't make a hard-coded policy that says, "This is how monsters will react to these powers in-game." If you do, you're really stripping a lot of the possible depth out of your combats and your game.

 

[Runestar]

- Mindless undead or mindless constructs are just going to continue swinging away at whatever's in front of them, and ignore any other enemies.

Even when the zombie minion is being marked by a paladin's divine challenge?

I agree that there is not necessarily a 1-sized-fits-all solution to how monsters are supposed to react. However, the issue here is that the defender classes seem to have been conceptualized around the idea that enemies are going to want to attack them over and above anyone else, and provisions do not seem to have been made to accommodate different monster archetypes.

For most part, I agree in principle with your list of guidelines on how individual monsters tend to react in those situations. However, this may result in the PCs' powers not working the way they expected them to (like the dragon opting to suck up the measly marking penalty and focus on attacking the wizard over anyone else), which might end up defeating the purpose of playing a defender in the first place, if you cannot get the enemy to want to attack you exclusively (which in turn means that you are unable to contribute effectively in your party).

The way many of such similar powers were designed, it seems that the designers were operating under a rather stringent set of assumptions as to how the enemies would react in said scenarios. Deviating from them runs the risk of hosing certain PCs' capabilities (even if it seems to make sense or may make for a more varied gaming experience) because they either won't work or don't work properly, while adhering to them more or less runs the risk of every encounter being played similarly, though no PC would be shortchanged in this case.

Where does one draw the line?

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I agree with firesnakearies -- that post reads almost like something out of a DMG -- the use of tactical knowledge of powers is a judgment call, depending on the nature of the creature.

To me the question is how to judge the border cases, the ones that could go either way. Specifically, how does the creature react the first time they have to make that tactical choice?

And my answer to that is to follow the spirit of 4e: "Yes".

The players want their attacks to work, and they are more likely to feel that their attacks work if the effect of the attack is visible and visceral. What is going to be more fun for the player? The case where the player gets to make that opportunity attack, or the extra damage kicks in.

I take it as a given that experience is a fine teacher, and that the result of the first tactical choice will shape the choice the next time it comes up. So the creature will be much less likely to make the same choice again if the player hits with the opportunity attack, but much more likely to if the player misses.

Again, I'm just referring to the border cases here. The brainless zombie will probably attack aggressively regardless of circumstances, and the thousand-year-old Lich will probably act cautiously in order to live (sic) to fight another day.