D&D 5E A traditionalist at heart, a NEW mechanic I desperately want from 5e.

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Thoughts? Am I missing existing mechanics for this? Are there unseen problems with this that I'm not noticing?

The existing mechanic for this has always been, and always should be (and hopefully will be) the DM's descriptions and warnings. It really sounds to me like what you're asking is to make what is now a "behind-the-DM-screen" gauge which compares the opponents the DM wants to use against the PC's into a Players tool - to take part of the control of what level of threat the PC's knowingly face out of the hands of the DM and give it to the players. The only reason I can really see for that is that the DM is unable or unwilling to provide that information in an appropriate manner to the players without needing to break the Fourth Wall to do it.

If the DM's guide gives appropriate advice to the DM along these lines then a purely mechanical tool for use by players should be unnecessary.

Edit: I guess for me it goes DIRECTLY to how much of the roleplaying elements you really want to strip out of D&D to turn it into a purely mechanical, tactical skirmish-oriented game. Players are not just directly GIVEN this information because we WANT them to pay attention to the DM's descriptions and warnings of what may or may not be out of their league. Occasionally we may even LIE to them about it for any number of reasons. D&D does not need a player MMORPG "mouseover" ability to gauge the threat of enemies with a color code.

 

[Hautamaki]

I allow my players to take appraise checks on a monster to determine its relative strength compared to them. Players can also use appraise checks to figure out more specific stuff after watching the monster in action; for example they can figure out its BAB (compared to them, not just a number but something like 'much higher than you' or 'about the same as you') after it attacks once and they can figure out its AC or even HP, again, compared to theirs, after they hit it.

 

[Holy Bovine]

In 5E, monsters will be color-coded by difficulty.

So they'll all be like dragons?

Dragons - coloured-coded for your convenience since 1977!

 

[Holy Bovine]

This isn't WoW!

What do you wan't next?
All creatures walk around with 20 ft wide neon nameplates in case you don't know the name of unknown creature?

Nice strawman there, Sparky. I don't think anyone was asking for that least of all the OP. You should really learn to control yourself.

You have your knowledge checks.

If no one in party doesn't have them? Too bad. Run away or charge and see how it goes.

You can also roll sense motive/insight if you interact with high level character that is disguised as a beggar.

Yes, knowledge checks can work for most monsters but I don't ever recall the sense motive/insight skills working to let you know if someone was actually a 15th level wizard or whatever. I think all that is needed is a simple formula added to the skill descriptions (I'd likely add in Know(local) or (nobility) for powerful NPCs from the area) that can give a PC an idea of the power of someone/thing.

 

[KidSnide]

Rules for gauging monster power is a lot like rules for morale. It's an important part of many games, but many DMs are able to effectively handle that aspect on an ad hoc basis.

I know it's popular to say "module" for practically anything, but this is a good candidate. All this rule needs is a short list of DCs to estimate the approximate level of an enemy. That will help DMs who need mechanical advice. It's also worth a sidebar telling new DMs why it's important to give players enough information for them to make informed decisions.

That all being said, I also agree with the sentiment that retreat needs to be a plausible option. Monsters shouldn't be designed so they are all faster than armored PCs and there should also be guidelines for evading pursuit.

-KS

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I agree with practically all of the posters so far...including many dissenters.

I'm not asking for an "automatic" knowledge of a monster's apparent power level...I'm hoping for an in game, narratively done, but backed with an appropriate mechanical CHANCE to determine what the apparent risk of a given monster might be.

I don't want:
1. It to be automatic (maybe players need to take a round or more to assess).
2. It to be foolproof (apart from mere failure, there's the chance for disguise and trickery)
3. It to remove the mystery (see 1. and 2.)
4. It to remove power and description from the dm.
5. It to take the place of knowledge checks or survival checks.

I DO want:
1. A way for a character to determine the difference between an aurumvorax and a golden honey badger in terms of threat level. (But not as easy a chance between a beholder and a gas spore).
2. A mechanic for simple general power level that every character has at least some base to use (i.e. not a skill you have to take...but not all characters would be the same, maybe something like 3e saving throws or bab).
3. A chance for players to realize they're out of their depth before it's "too late" to retreat.
4. To be able to play a game "cautiously" but not "paranoidly".
5. Players to still choose to be risky (or not) but to empower them somewhat with additional information about the degree of risk they're getting into.


Most importantly, by giving players the ability to determine the level of risk, it can actually make things more scary...or at least more heroic when they decide to face off against a threat that they know they're likely to lose to. When I play, and I face an unknown monster, there's a low level of fear of the unknown...but if the unknown is ubiquitous, then that fear subsides (well, I might die or I might not, let's give it a go). When I play and KNOW that it's a heck of a challenge (e.g. a boss fight that a DM has left a lot of clues about) there is a greater amount of fear.

I'm not necessarily asking to pin it down to a number (you have x% chance of winning; or he's 3 cr higher than your group level). I simply think it'd be better if players weren't going in totally blind to some situations, and I also think it makes narrative sense for them to have some basic idea how tough something is.



How many times have you guys read on these boards "They stayed to fight THAT and were dead in a round...then they were idiots. They should have run."? I've read it often enough (and reading it recently was what gave me this idea). HOW were they idiots if they have no way of determining if the "THAT" is above their level? At some point, it's the heroes' job to run in guns blazing...and it's also their job to know when not to. I think putting all of the onus on the DM for quality description in every single instance is unfair...and I also think there are plenty of times when players don't have the time, ability, or resources to research something.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I don't think this needs to be supported mechanically by the rules itself necessarily.

It could be handled by the DM narratively. NPCs flee or warn them (Gandalf and the Balrog), they hear rumors beforehand (so they know that the demon they will encounter is the slayer of worlds etc).

This is an excellent point, and I do usually use this (not yet having the mechanic I'm proposing/requesting). I'd still continue to do this as much as possible. However, there are not always opportunities to do this. In random encounters it's quite difficult, for example (not that I'm a huge fan of those). Also there can be "scripted" encounters where the players are ambushed by a monster. Should they always run? Why not? If they don't know if it is a major threat or a pansy, and if the dm isn't a "the encounter will always be at your level, never far below, never far above" type of dm...then they need to figure it out somehow (dying being one option).

So let's say I'm a level 10 fighter facing a big hulking unknown beast. The DM will describe to the player its size and appearance, and the player can roll a knowledge check to see if he has any idea of its abilities. Beyond that, he can take a few whacks to see how tough it is (gauge its AC and HP)... I don't really see how the character would have any immediate idea how dangerous it was, any more than the player would, unless we're talking about some supernatural ability to "sense its ki level" or whatever.

Sure, or you could be facing a tiny unknown beast...a floating skull/head (demilich, flaming skull, peneggalan, vargouille?). In one round of whacking the pc might well be dead if a demilich rather than a vargouille.

The problem with "a few wacks to test" is that 1. it commits the player to engaging it (making retreat sometimes impossible) 2. either combat can be quickly deadly (making "a few wacks to test" not a feasible way of testing) or 3. we give monsters a ton of hit points and have them do lower damage (and then combat becomes very long and grindy).

 

[Aberzanzorax]

That's where the various knowledge checks come in. It's less "I sense a strong power level...IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND!!" and more "I've been around the block enough times and fought enough enemies and traded enough stories to know that this guy's going to be pretty tough/a pushover/whatever". You may never have run into a hook horror before, but you might have heard a tale from your master about fighting one, or talk in a tavern with another adventurer years ago. Or something like a dragon, you might be able to tell by the coloration and size of its scales how old it is.

If you read a lot of action-oriented fiction (I've run into it a lot in hardboiled mysteries), a strong fighter being able to pick out another strong fighter by the way he holds himself is a strong trope that's been going on for ages. "The thugs were green. I could see the fear and uncertainty in their eyes when I wasn't intimidated. Their boss in the back, though, he was unfazed. He seemed to be looking at nothing but seeing everything, and there wasn't a wasted movement in every action he performed."

So making a knowledge check to get a basic idea of how tough something is fits well with both those tropes. Being able to quickly assess an opponent should be something every adventurer learns how to do very early in their career for survival's sake if nothing else.

This is an awesome post, and I couldn't xp ya till today. I LOVE the description that you use. And here is where I think there's room to separate knowledge checks out from "combat intuition". The example of the lack of intimidation and such is not "knowledge humans"...it incorporates a fighter's ability to determine who might be a match.

I'm thinking of two other tropes that this brings up. First, the "once we start fighting we know how good the other person is". An experienced fighter with a newb will quickly know that he's fighting a less competent opponent. In D&D we know (he hit and he missed and he did x damage etc). There is, of course room for description (in my mind, DEMAND for description)...but there's also a limit to how much description is desired, and how much one can convey with a few words (especially on the spot and in the heat of the moment). There is also the "experienced fighter knows the other guy is experienced" such as the Dread Pirate Roberts fighting Inigo Montoya.

The other trope I'm thinking of is that of a "mind fight" between fighters. This is much less common, but when done well, it's really cool. I can't remember the title, but there's a Jet li movie where the entire fight takes place in the minds of the two duelists, with one surrendering in defeat, just based on their stances and their knowledge of one another's fighting styles.

I don't think there's a mechanic present for either of these two tropes.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I don't want PC's to be able to look at a monster and say "Yeah, this thing can kill us, let's run." I want them to look at a monster and say "I have no idea if this can kill us or not... let's be cautious until we can figure things out."

This is where it is useful for Bloodied to (usually) be an overt sign.

If your party hits it fives times and it isn't yet Bloodied, well, you know you might be in trouble.

 

[Angrydad]

This is an awesome post, and I couldn't xp ya till today. I LOVE the description that you use. And here is where I think there's room to separate knowledge checks out from "combat intuition". The example of the lack of intimidation and such is not "knowledge humans"...it incorporates a fighter's ability to determine who might be a match.

I'm thinking of two other tropes that this brings up. First, the "once we start fighting we know how good the other person is". An experienced fighter with a newb will quickly know that he's fighting a less competent opponent. In D&D we know (he hit and he missed and he did x damage etc). There is, of course room for description (in my mind, DEMAND for description)...but there's also a limit to how much description is desired, and how much one can convey with a few words (especially on the spot and in the heat of the moment). There is also the "experienced fighter knows the other guy is experienced" such as the Dread Pirate Roberts fighting Inigo Montoya.

The other trope I'm thinking of is that of a "mind fight" between fighters. This is much less common, but when done well, it's really cool. I can't remember the title, but there's a Jet li movie where the entire fight takes place in the minds of the two duelists, with one surrendering in defeat, just based on their stances and their knowledge of one another's fighting styles.

I don't think there's a mechanic present for either of these two tropes.

I too loved the description. That said, I've always allowed my players to use knowledge skills on monsters and Sense Motive on humanoids to gauge the potential threat. Based on their rolls, I'd say things like, "This warrior seems a bit unsure of himself and his hands tremble a bit as he draws his sword" to indicate lower level threats. Tougher threats get described in more badass terms. If the players are still a little confused by my descriptions, I'll just say, "Clearly Sir Lancelot is more skilled than your 4th level fighter. By a lot".