Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="glitchwraith" data-source="post: 4518876" data-attributes="member: 79026">While this certainly is an option for deciding who a monster might attack, I think its overly complicates things to role a knowledge check for each monster before deciding what they do. Though I'm not that experienced of a DM, I would handle things much different.&nbsp;First off, I would keep in mind the monsters general intellignece/mind set vs. the players outward apperance for the fight. I would assume that a monster of more or less human intellignece would be aware of class archtypes, and use that for identifying purposes. &quot;Guy in robes is probably a caster of some kind.&quot; &quot;Guy in armor probably a heavy hitter.&quot; &quot;Guy with daggers probably a thief/scout.&quot; &quot;Guy with symbol around neck/decorating sheild probably some kind of church affiliate.&quot; Assuming the players appear to be an average member of this class, these will identify most roles accuratly.&nbsp;True, some classes may resemble each other enough to confuse the enemies, but if their resonably intellignet and observant, it doesn't take long to get clues. &quot;This guy is carrying a wand and chunking fireballs, hes probably a wizard. Oh wait, hes screaming out blasphemous curses. Warlock.&quot; &quot;This guy has a holy symbol, so either cleric or paladin. Judging by heavy armor and sword, probably paladin.&quot; &quot;This guy has pretty good armor and looks tough, probably fighter. Oh wait, hes barking orders. Maby warlord?&quot; &quot;Hmm, this guy is hiding in the shadows. Rogue? Oh wait, hes got two longswords. Ranger.&quot;&nbsp;Now, this is just a general guidline, but it isn't gauranteed to be accurate, and won't be used by all monsters. Animal-like or especialy dim monsters might not notice or care about such clues, and would just attack wichever one is closest/looks least threatening/looks tasty/ect. Also, the party might have characters that defy stereotypes, ie armored wizard, lightly armored fighter, ect. In such cases, the monsters might not figure out the role till its to late, unless there especialy smart or know enough about the characters personaly to know their style before hand. This way keeps the roleplaying in mind, but lets the dm use more sophisticated tactics in some instances.&nbsp;As for the players, let them play how they want. So long as there not using knowledge that shouldn't be available to the characters, I don't see any harm in using metagamey tactics. Hell, when I'm a player, I can usualy find an rp reason for any particularly advantagouse action. Course, it helps when I'm picking powers that blend well with my characters personality, and it seems what powers you take determines alot of your tatical choices anyway.&nbsp;(I know, I talk way to much for someone so new)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="glitchwraith, post: 4518876, member: 79026"] While this certainly is an option for deciding who a monster might attack, I think its overly complicates things to role a knowledge check for each monster before deciding what they do. Though I'm not that experienced of a DM, I would handle things much different. First off, I would keep in mind the monsters general intellignece/mind set vs. the players outward apperance for the fight. I would assume that a monster of more or less human intellignece would be aware of class archtypes, and use that for identifying purposes. "Guy in robes is probably a caster of some kind." "Guy in armor probably a heavy hitter." "Guy with daggers probably a thief/scout." "Guy with symbol around neck/decorating sheild probably some kind of church affiliate." Assuming the players appear to be an average member of this class, these will identify most roles accuratly. True, some classes may resemble each other enough to confuse the enemies, but if their resonably intellignet and observant, it doesn't take long to get clues. "This guy is carrying a wand and chunking fireballs, hes probably a wizard. Oh wait, hes screaming out blasphemous curses. Warlock." "This guy has a holy symbol, so either cleric or paladin. Judging by heavy armor and sword, probably paladin." "This guy has pretty good armor and looks tough, probably fighter. Oh wait, hes barking orders. Maby warlord?" "Hmm, this guy is hiding in the shadows. Rogue? Oh wait, hes got two longswords. Ranger." Now, this is just a general guidline, but it isn't gauranteed to be accurate, and won't be used by all monsters. Animal-like or especialy dim monsters might not notice or care about such clues, and would just attack wichever one is closest/looks least threatening/looks tasty/ect. Also, the party might have characters that defy stereotypes, ie armored wizard, lightly armored fighter, ect. In such cases, the monsters might not figure out the role till its to late, unless there especialy smart or know enough about the characters personaly to know their style before hand. This way keeps the roleplaying in mind, but lets the dm use more sophisticated tactics in some instances. As for the players, let them play how they want. So long as there not using knowledge that shouldn't be available to the characters, I don't see any harm in using metagamey tactics. Hell, when I'm a player, I can usualy find an rp reason for any particularly advantagouse action. Course, it helps when I'm picking powers that blend well with my characters personality, and it seems what powers you take determines alot of your tatical choices anyway. (I know, I talk way to much for someone so new) [/QUOTE]

Verification