If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

[Guest 6801328]

So what level was he when he retired?

And when you reactivated him what level was he considered?

This is interesting.

Do you think it's possible for an NPC military general to be low(ish) level? For example, could the general be 2nd level, giving orders to 7th level captains?

This isn't a trap. I just realized that some people may have stricter interpretations of "level", or stronger correlations between level and status, than I do.

 

[Bawylie]

So what level was he when he retired?

Don’t know. For purposes of the one-shot, he was level 3, IIRC. I imagined he had been mid-tier at the high point in his life but age and lack of constant training effectively de leveled him. But I didn’t start him at higher level and then strip levels away or anything, I just thought up the “retired-but-can’t-leave-the-life” backstory in mind when making up a level 3 character.

There were some details like his equipment was old, dented, and way out of fashion. All the painted devices were faded and the cloth was worn thin. None of that came up in play, but it was part of the concept.

 

[Yardiff]

It still depends on what you mean by "veteran" and what implications you think that has.

Personally I can get behind letting a player use his knowledge (to an extent) if the background and backstory makes sense that that knowledge would be available.

Outlander is probably the best for this kind of thing. Soldier is iffy because war doesn't know always mean fighting creatures. Sailor is possible because, as with the Outlander, of how much traveling they do.

Also I agree with Oofta in that monster are generally reginal, so if you come from that region its possible to have info.


Overall I don't think a GM should HAVE to use new creature to challenge a low level party run by 'veteran' players.

 

[Yardiff]

Don’t know. For purposes of the one-shot, he was level 3, IIRC. I imagined he had been mid-tier at the high point in his life but age and lack of constant training effectively de leveled him. But I didn’t start him at higher level and then strip levels away or anything, I just thought up the “retired-but-can’t-leave-the-life” backstory in mind when making up a level 3 character.

There were some details like his equipment was old, dented, and way out of fashion. All the painted devices were faded and the cloth was worn thin. None of that came up in play, but it was part of the concept.

This makes sense because his backstory gives a solid reason for such info.

 

[Yardiff]

This is interesting.

Do you think it's possible for an NPC military general to be low(ish) level? For example, could the general be 2nd level, giving orders to 7th level captains?

This isn't a trap. I just realized that some people may have stricter interpretations of "level", or stronger correlations between level and status, than I do.

This is possible because a politically appointed general could have very little actual experience of soldiering and/or war/tactics.

 

[Yardiff]

It's possible I bear some emotional baggage from Saelorn stubbornly repeating that I wasn't really roleplaying (until he blocked me). So I tend to come out swinging on this issue.

I can understand this and I'm sorry if things got to much into stuff.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Overall I don't think a GM should HAVE to use new creature to challenge a low level party run by 'veteran' players.

I agree! Largely because the challenge doesn't have to come from 'secret' monster abilities. For instance, put goblin archers on two high platform with 3/4 cover, with ladders that will take 2 rounds to climb to get up there, each ladder exposed to the other platform, and you've got a fun challenge, regardless of how thoroughly the players have read the Monster Manual.

 

[iserith]

Personally I can letting a player use his knowledge (to an extent) if the background and backstory makes sense that that knowledge would be available.

Outlander is probably the best for this kind of thing. Soldier is iffy because war doesn't know always mean fighting creatures. Sailor is possible because, as with the Outlander, of how much traveling they do.

Also I agree with Oofta in that monster are generally reginal, so if you come from that region its possible to have info.


Overall I don't think a GM should HAVE to use new creature to challenge a low level party run by 'veteran' players.

I think the issue is that knowledge or experience is not a requirement to act (given effectively infinite justifications as needed), and the player is always in charge of what the character does, short of magical compulsion or the like. So the DM doesn't actually have a say in the application of the player's knowledge unless the DM creates a table rule to the contrary. Such a table rule in my view is completely unnecessary and counterproductive as it is an attempt at a solution to a problem the DM is creating. Better to not create the problem in the first place in my view.

To that end, players in my game know they're free to use whatever knowledge they wish to inform their actions; however, they also know that I sometimes change things which makes assumptions risky. So the smart play is to pay attention to my telegraphing and verify their assumptions before acting upon them.

Further, difficulty in a challenge is achieved through a number of vectors and ignorance of a monster's abilities (for example) is just one such vector. To my mind, if the DM can present a challenge when the players have full knowledge of everything in it and it's still difficult (if slightly less difficult than if the players have no knowledge), that's a well-designed challenge.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This is possible because a politically appointed general could have very little actual experience of soldiering and/or war/tactics.

How about a seasoned strategist and admired leader who isn’t himself a fearsome 1v1 combatant?

In other words, how does the game term “level” correlate to the in-game fiction?

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think the issue is that knowledge or experience is not a requirement to act (given effectively infinite justifications as needed), and the player is always in charge of what the character does, short of magical compulsion or the like. So the DM doesn't actually have a say in the application of the player's knowledge unless the DM creates a table rule to the contrary. Such a table rule in my view is completely unnecessary and counterproductive as it is an attempt at a solution to a problem the DM is creating. Better to not create the problem in the first place in my view.

To that end, players in my game know they're free to use whatever knowledge they wish to inform their actions; however, they also know that I sometimes change things which makes assumptions risky. So the smart play is to pay attention to my telegraphing and verify their assumptions before acting upon them.

Further, difficulty in a challenge is achieved through a number of vectors and ignorance of a monster's abilities (for example) is just one such vector. To my mind, if the DM can present a challenge when the players have full knowledge of everything in it and it's still difficult (if slightly less difficult than if the players have no knowledge), that's a well-designed challenge.

So would it be fair to say that at your table a character who had never encountered a particular monster would be free to use player knowledge, and that if the character/player knowledge divide were important to that player, he/she would be welcome to narrate whatever fiction explained it, such as luck, observation of a detail, flash of divine insight, recollection of an old folk tale, etc?