How to explain Monsters new abilities to the PCs

[Henry]

By and large, it won't matter if it's an ability or not; from what I'm gatehring from the dispel magic preview, there aren't going to be very many "ability counter-abilities" the way there were in 3E. In other words, it won't matter if it's a power or not, because you won't have anything that can interfere with it. In the cases where you DO interfere, such as that Fighter's Combat Awareness thing, it's spelled out pretty clearly.

 

[Xorn]

I guess I do both. I described the blocking for each other, including why it was happening.

"Because the two soldiers are standing adjacent to each other, they are using their shields to cover the other as they attack, making them collectively harder to hit."

"I freaking Tide of Iron them." Was the response from the Fighter in my first game with hobgoblin soldiers. (Followed by an Action Point + Passing Attack)

 

[Rechan]

I thnk it's fine to say "When xhappens, monster can do y". Like "When they're next to eachother, they are better defended". Or Hobgoblin archers "When one hits, another ally hits better".

This way PCs don't feel like you're really ganging up on them in say, the dragon fight, where any missed attack = tail in the face, or auto-breath on a bloodied.

 

[MortalPlague]

This is what 'knowledge' skills are for.

I think the way you ran that is pretty close to the way I ran it. In my test run, I had a similar group of hobgoblins. We were doing a combat test, so I wasn't doing full description of the attacks, but I did mention that the two hobgoblins seemed to be covering each other's weak points, making them collectively harder to hit. In the game proper, I think knowledge skills would be appropriate if a player wants specific information on this sort of thing (i.e. exactly what the conditions of the ability are or exactly how much of a bonus it grants), or an insight roll if there are no appropriate knowledge skills.

Of course, this all depends on the group. Some groups prefer the straight up explanation of what's happening, whereas others find that it breaks the illusion of the narrative.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think that for something like the phalanx ability, it should be clear that the monsters are lined up in formation before a swing is made. Likewise for most abilities that require a setup beforehand (ie - if some foe is getting an AC bonus for not moving, there's probably a tell-tale sign that this is the case) explain at the point that the setup occurs, not at the point that the bonus applies.

Apart from that - no, I don't think you need to explain precisely what is happening as long as your information is useful to the players. In your example, the description of what happened is sufficiently vague that it makes it very difficult for a player to piece together how they can counter it.

Personally I think that a good rule of thumb is that the information conveyed by my descriptions should be the same, regardless of whether I outright tell the PCs the rules or not, and any exceptions to that should be carefully thought through.

 

[WyzardWhately]

I think the PCs need to know what's going on in order to play the tactical end of the game. I'm the GM, and I play hardball. I'm not going to constantly second-guess myself, as to whether or not the monsters would have figured out the mechanical function of the abilities the PCs use. The players shouldn't have to play a guessing-game either, or it's unfair to them.

 

[Mort_Q]

I think the PCs need to know what's going on in order to play the tactical end of the game. I'm the GM, and I play hardball. I'm not going to constantly second-guess myself, as to whether or not the monsters would have figured out the mechanical function of the abilities the PCs use. The players shouldn't have to play a guessing-game either, or it's unfair to them.

I think it's fair (and more fun) to reveal the abilities of the NPCs once it becomes obvious the the PCs would have figured it out by now. So perhaps in the case mentioned, once a roll that should have hit, missed, or.... whatever... making hard and fast rules as to when it would be revealed aren't necessary (or desirable).

A DM can play hardball when the PCs are doing dumb stuff, or throw in an impromptu spot check, or ability check, or whatever.

Most of the people I game with also DM, so it's not like they wouldn't know most of the non home-brew powers anyway, regardless of which monster it's usually associated with it.

 

[vladbat]

Thanks guys.
While the argument doesn't seem settled here either the points brought up are things I will ahve to think about as I develop my DM style.

 

[LostSoul]

You have to consider only one thing: what is going to be more fun for your group.

If you don't tell them what's going on in game terms, that will make the game more challenging. It could get frustrating as they try to shut down monster powers, only to fail because they misunderstood your description.

But - some people will enjoy the added challenge, and others won't want to be drawn out of character and like the description you have to provide.

So there are reasons for doing it either way. What you have to decide - what your group has to decide - is which way will be more fun.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

easy: you just tell them that the hobgobins seem to have trained fighting next to each other like in a Phalanx... what do you expect a phalanx to do?

i guess the PC have abilities that have similar mechanics (we already have seen shielding your neighbour is an easy task for both paldins and warlords, and fighters maybe too)