Grapple and AoO Question

[Mephistopheles]

Players will generally use their knowledge of game mechanics to try to let their characters act as effectively as possible. It's only fair that the DM should be allowed to do the same for NPCs as appropriate.

One thing that turns me right off as a DM is when I have an NPC take an action that is both appropriate for the situation and makes the NPC more effective in that situation and the players call it metagaming because it makes things harder for them. They are actually metagaming in that situation because they haven't stopped to consider why the NPC acted that way with in game reasoning before jumping the gun.

If a 12th level PC wizard has learned to recognise various feints and decoys used against him and would consider it appropriate for his character to respond effectively against them why wouldn't an NPC have had similar exposure and learned to respond similarly?

I'm not saying the DM should thwart his players when they try to use some cunning on every occasion, however, the players should not expect every opponent they come across to be a chump especially as they advance in level. You don't need to start coming up with rules and rolls to regulate every thought going through an NPCs head.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If a 12th level PC wizard has learned to recognise various feints and decoys used against him and would consider it appropriate for his character to respond effectively against them why wouldn't an NPC have had similar exposure and learned to respond similarly?

What I2K is saying is that there's a difference between:

Player: So I move ten feet around him like this...
DM: [Hmm... he might be about to grapple. I should save my AoO just in case.]
Player: ... and attempt a grapple!
DM: He takes an AoO...

and

Player: So I'm going to move ten feet around him, and then attempt to grapple.
DM: [Well, if he's definitely going to grapple, I'd better not take the AoO for movement.]
DM: He doesn't react as you move, but he takes an AoO when you attempt the grapple...

In the first case, the wizard is making a tactical decision based on the possibility that his opponent might attempt a grapple.

In the second, the wizard is making a tactical decision based on the DM's certain knowledge of future events that the wizard should not be privy to.

-Hyp.

 

[Mephistopheles]

In the first case, the wizard is making a tactical decision based on the possibility that his opponent might attempt a grapple.

In the second, the wizard is making a tactical decision based on the DM's certain knowledge of future events that the wizard should not be privy to.

-Hyp.

Actually in the first case it's the DM making a tactical decision. In this example the DM has read his player correctly or just guessed correctly and passed that benefit on to the NPC.

In the second the DM is fully informed and makes a judgement call on whether or not he feels the wizard would make the correct tactical decision or not. If the DM is using the information to make fair calls that are appropriate to the situation I see no problem with this.

Neither approach is necessarily better. Personally I prefer the second because it casts the DM in what I think is the more correct role of accepting full input from the players and making meaningful judgement calls based on that input, while the first seems more like the DM is being expected to play wargames against his players and the effectiveness of the NPCs is depending more on the DMs ability to do that than it is on the DM making judgement calls in response to input from the players.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the DM is using the information to make fair calls that are appropriate to the situation I see no problem with this.

I think the whole point is that using information the wizard could not possibly have has the potential to result in an unfair call.

For the first time ever, the PC cast Energy Immunity: Electricity today, in a small closed room, with Detect Scrying running.

For some reason, the DM decides that the NPC sorcerer uses Empowered Burning Hands instead of Lightning Bolt - strictly an inferior choice in the situation, except against a creature with some sort of Electricity Resistance.

If the DM had forgotten that the PC had cast Energy Immunity, he would have chosen Lightning Bolt. Because he remembered (despite the sorcerer not knowing that information), he changed his mind.

Do you consider this a fair call?

-Hyp.

 

[Mephistopheles]

I think the whole point is that using information the wizard could not possibly have has the potential to result in an unfair call.

For the first time ever, the PC cast Energy Immunity: Electricity today, in a small closed room, with Detect Scrying running.

For some reason, the DM decides that the NPC sorcerer uses Empowered Burning Hands instead of Lightning Bolt - strictly an inferior choice in the situation, except against a creature with some sort of Electricity Resistance.

If the DM had forgotten that the PC had cast Energy Immunity, he would have chosen Lightning Bolt. Because he remembered (despite the sorcerer not knowing that information), he changed his mind.

Do you consider this a fair call?

-Hyp.

No I don't consider that a fair call. I'm not sure where you get the impression that I would.

As a matter of course the DM is going to have information about the game that NPCs he portrays during a game session do not have. That is always going to be the case. How the DM chooses to deal with that is an individual matter.

The example you've contrived is one that shows a DM who is playing the game versus his players rather than running the game for his players. I'm not sure where you're trying to take the discussion with that example so I'll leave it to you to elaborate rather than making any assumptions.

 

[Dracorat]

On the other hand, I do quite often have the BBEG (the end guy) cast divination spells, interrogate their gaurds, use Spellcraft checks on rooms that had fights in them, etc, to find out what spells the party typically uses and by the time the party gets to said BBEG, he usually has a different spell list than the module originally described...

 

[Hypersmurf]

The example you've contrived is one that shows a DM who is playing the game versus his players rather than running the game for his players. I'm not sure where you're trying to take the discussion with that example so I'll leave it to you to elaborate rather than making any assumptions.

It's the same as the grapple example.

If the DM takes into account his knowledge that the player intends to grapple - not suspicion, but knowledge - in the wizard's decision, this is exactly the same situation as using his knowledge that the PC has cast Energy Immunity.

His decision on whether the wizard chooses to take an AoO against the movement needs to be made based on the wizard's knowledge, which doesn't include "The PC is certainly going to grapple".

-Hyp.

 

[Mephistopheles]

It's the same as the grapple example.

If the DM takes into account his knowledge that the player intends to grapple - not suspicion, but knowledge - in the wizard's decision, this is exactly the same situation as using his knowledge that the PC has cast Energy Immunity.

His decision on whether the wizard chooses to take an AoO against the movement needs to be made based on the wizard's knowledge, which doesn't include "The PC is certainly going to grapple".

-Hyp.

Fair enough, but how is this different from the myriad of other things that the DM knows about the game, and the PCs in particular, that this NPC wizard does not?

If the DM knows up front what the player is doing then he can make the decision based on the wizard's knowledge and prior experience. The DM knows the player is going to grapple, now does he think the wizard might guess that or not? The DM makes the call.

The alternative situation where the DM doesn't know leaves the situation up to whether or not the DM picks up or guesses what the player is going to do. Maybe the wizard would have guessed what the player is going to do but if the DM doesn't know that is irrelevant because the DM can't make a call on information he doesn't have.

As I've already said my position on this stuff is based on personal preference. When I run a game I like to have plenty of information so that I can try to make consistent calls for my players that result in a fun and challenging game. Right now I don't see that you're making a point beyond saying that there are DMs who will use DM knowledge to make the game unpleasant for their players. I can't disagree with you on that but it's not exactly pratical for the DM not to know what's going on. I mean, if the DM doesn't know what's going on then who does?

 

[Infiniti2000]

If the DM knows up front what the player is doing then he can make the decision based on the wizard's knowledge and prior experience. The DM knows the player is going to grapple, now does he think the wizard might guess that or not? The DM makes the call.

Exactly. You are not saying anything different than Hyp or I, as Hyp is just explaining my point.