At what point do players know they're fighting Minions?

[KarinsDad]

KD, please point out where someone actually recommended we spoon feed players.

Some of the monster knowledge check rules are spoon feeding players.

How exactly do you know that a Goblin is a Goblin Cutter, or a Goblin Blackblade, or a Goblin Warrior? It's a fricking Goblin dude.

There are 141 Goblins in the Compendium and yet with a simple die roll, the game system suggests that the players know all kind of stuff about each one.

What the PCs should know are: a) obvious visible items like weapons and armor, b) an idea about powers after they are used, not before (only the most general of knowledge beforehand), c) monster type (i.e. humanoid), d) keywords, and e) the cool knowledge in the monster DC sidebars. Even things like vulnerabilities is kind of lame. For example, a lich is not vulnerable to radiant damage, but it does stop it from regenerating for a round. If you tell the player of the Cleric that the Lich is not vulnerable to radiant, then the Cleric might rarely use radiant damage and miss out on a combat option to minimize the regeneration. If you tell the player of the Cleric that radiant damage minimizes the lich's regeneration, then you are practically forcing the player of the Cleric to only pick one of a few powers to use on the Lich and forcing PC tactics.

The entire "everyone is entitled to know all kinds of strange and esoteric information about creatures and their abilities" is spoon feeding.

What part of the game is mysterious and exciting and unexpected if a single die roll can tell the players all about their foes?

I just find that it takes away from the fun of the game if there is next to zero mystery or suspense.

It's like playing WoW where monster info is stamped above the creature's head. Tattooed there for all to see.

So yes, everyone who in this thread has stated that they give hints like "all 6 of these goblins are identical" and "these goblins have inferior weapons or seem like they want to run away" (even without a die roll) are spoon feeding their players. IMO, YMMV.

Knowing that the Lich has a phylactery and can probably cast spells? Cool. Knowing that the Lich can cast a Frostburn spell? Bogus. There are more than a dozen types of Liches that cannot cast that spell, but the PCs are supposed to know by looking at the foe whether he can or cannot. I just find that to be lame and not fun.


In the MM, the spoon feeding even starts with some Monsters having the word Minion in their name. Now, what self respecting monster would have Minion in their name? "Ha ha, you're Fred the Minion.".

 

[Delgar]

I don't try and hide minions from my players, mostly through my description of the critters, they decide quickly on whose the biggest and baddest threat, and who is probably a minion.

Now, from time to time, I might throw a surprise their way, but that would be the exception and not the norm.

In most action movies, fantasy movies and sci fi movies, the heroes know who the mooks are and tear through them with rapid efficency to get to the real threat.

I don't see why my game should run any differently.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think there should be clear visual clues that the characters should notice that makes it possible for them to notice if something is: a minion, normal, elite or solo monster. This is what I go with most of the time. My players also asks how close to death a monster is.

What I don't do is follow the rules on monster knowledge checks. I feel they get in the way of role playing and gives way too much detailed information. Instead, I tend to be very informative when a power is used in both description and game mechanical terms.

 

[Nytmare]

I always hope that at some point people will notice that the game is an abstraction and not a set of rules meant to perfectly imitate life.

Unless you're playing in a tongue in cheek campaign, "Goblin Cutter" is not an occupation. Young goblins don't grow up and make sure that they pay attention in class to avoid landing a low paying job as a single hitpoint sack of XP. Monsters don't scream out the name of their powers when they use them, the people in the imaginary world don't measure how many times they can get stabbed in the back with a number scribbled onto a piece of paper, and adventurers don't run around with weapons and armor that have glowing +3s etched into their sides.

There's a goblin in front of you, you roll a die, and out of all of the things that you actively know about goblins, right at that second, your character will not be surprised if this one jumps out of the way when you swing your sword at him. If you don't make the roll, out of everything the character knows, he WILL be surprised when it jumps out of the way! You can almost TASTE the excitement and mystery!

Yes, if they make the roll, the player is handed a list of information with silly names and a bunch of mechanical effects. The system is not at fault if you refuse to take the moment to translate that into information that fits properly into your character's head. It's not entitlement, it just a way to make it easier to share the content and pass out information.

Yes, reading through the Monster Manual is not a particularly exciting or mystery filled experience. Thankfully the game isn't about reading through monster stat blocks, and there's not only a whole other part of the game that handles that, but there's a person in charge of things who can take heaping handfulls of excitement and mystery and stuff them into the game wherever he or she sees fit.

As a side note, I find your comment about the lich particularly confusing

If you tell the player of the Cleric that the Lich is not vulnerable to radiant, then the Cleric might rarely use radiant damage and miss out on a combat option to minimize the regeneration. If you tell the player of the Cleric that radiant damage minimizes the lich's regeneration, then you are practically forcing the player of the Cleric to only pick one of a few powers to use on the Lich and forcing PC tactics.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but it would appear as though no matter what, no matter which way a possible rule would work in that suituation, you would have a problem with it. I'd never be one to accuse you of arguing for arguments sake, but not even being able to agree with yourself is kinda silly.

 

[frankthedm]

"Their fighting postures seem to leave critical openings ripe for a deadly strike, but it it could be just an act to lure you into striking a blow they are ready to defend against."

 

[KarinsDad]

As a side note, I find your comment about the lich particularly confusing

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but it would appear as though no matter what, no matter which way a possible rule would work in that suituation, you would have a problem with it. I'd never be one to accuse you of arguing for arguments sake, but not even being able to agree with yourself is kinda silly.

The point was simple.

If you use the Monster Knowledge Check rules in this case, you are actually doing the opposite of the intent of the Monster Knowledge Check rules. You are implying to the Cleric that Radiant damage is no big deal to the Lich when in fact it is relevant. You are misleading the player.

If you add to the Monster Knowledge Check rules and tell the player that radiant damage does affect regeneration, then you are limiting the player's choices. The player is actually being pressured into using a radiant attack if he has one (which is what the MKC rules tend to do anyway, which I do dislike).

If, on the other hand, you don't tell the player anything that the PC cannot actually observe, then you don't run into either one of these issues. The player makes his less informed decision as to early encounter attacks. At some point during the encounter, the PC might notice something (Perception: you notice that the creature's wounds are slowly healing, Perception: you notice that the creature's wounds are not healing anymore, Wow: that foe fell in a single hit). You give the player the information that the PC actually observes, do not give him a bunch of clues ahead of time, and allows him to make informed decisions not on a bunch of knowledge rules that might be different for creatures of the exact same race, but instead give him only knowledge that is applicable for all creatures of a given race (i.e. general knowledge).

The player might misinterpret what the DM is saying and screw up. The player might misinterpret what the DM is saying and score great. Or, the player might take a series of clues gained during the encounter and start improving his tactics.

But the concept of auto-feeding a PC a bunch of monster info (including minion status) so that the player can ONLY make reasonably decent tactical decisions takes a lot of the mystery and fun out of the game. When one knows the capabilities of all of the foes, it's more like playing chess.

Allow your players to gradually figure stuff out as they progress through an encounter and the success of the encounter will be more important to them than if you give the players most of the answers right away. There is less fun from overcoming a challenge if you have most of the answers as there is if you have few of the answers and figure stuff out on your own.

 

[Nifft]

"Their fighting postures seem to leave critical openings ripe for a deadly strike, but it it could be just an act to lure you into striking a blow they are ready to defend against."

"... or perhaps it is an act to hide the fact that they are actually so weak, a single clout with the pommel of your sword would send them to sleep for a fortnight. You ought never underestimate the cunning mind of a zombie rotter!"

Cheers, -- N

 

[Flipguarder]

All I'm against is actually TELLING your players they are minions. I myself, actually try to use fewer and different types of minions to spice things up a bit. Players imo shouldn't be using dailys right of the bat anyway.

 

[NMcCoy]

In my games, I don't generally tell the players which creatures are minions. However, I do use indistinguishable glass beads to denote them on the battlemat, which tends to be a pretty big hint.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My experience is that players pretty quickly figure what is and isn't a minion. I don't tell them in so many words, but I do often describe a given monster as looking inexperienced or with poor equipment.

As for monster knowledge checks, I don't think they're spoon feeding anyone. They're a bit of a reward for having knowledge skills, a way for those skills to contribute to combat. Its reasonable to keep a bit of information vague or leave out some details that the PCs might not know about, but also remember that these checks are far from being passed automatically.

Lets consider a case: A level 1 PC runs into a zombie. He's a cleric, so his wisdom is 18 (+4) and he's got Religion training (+5), so his check is at +9. Its a heroic tier monster so his check is 4+ to know its a zombie, that zombies are mindless and usually attack, and that zombies are undead. On a 9+ he knows that they have a slam attack that does moderately high damage and that they like to grab things and hold on. On a 14+ he knows they're immune to disease and poison, resistant to necrotic damage and vulnerable to radiant damage.

Now, the same PC faced with an Eladrin Fey Knight may well have NO plus to his check. On a 15+ he knows its an Eladrin Fey Knight. On a 20 he knows powers, which means he knows the Knight uses a longsword, can tangle people up using it, can teleport, and a couple other minor things. He has no chance to know anything else.

Really, the information can be fairly generalized as well. Nothing says that knowing the 'powers' of a creature means you have to give the player the stat block entry for every power. Same with resist/vuln and even in the case of the most basic info the keywords and a name to attach to the thing is enough.