Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nifft" data-source="post: 4349512" data-attributes="member: 6562">Agree.There are traits that a monster can have which the PCs must &quot;discover&quot;:- Defenses- Fire resistance- Half damage from ranged melee attacksThere are attacks which the PCs will &quot;discover&quot; when they're subject to them:- Breath weapon- Ongoing damage- Status effectsBut attacks and defenses aren't &quot;unfair&quot;. Critters are expected to have some of both, and that's cool.&quot;Unfair&quot; abilities are those for which a disproportionate value is derived from information asymmetry.Take the Earseeker example: if the players knew such things existed, they'd always take an appropriate counter-measure when listening at a door. The monster is worthless unless the players don't know to expect it, because there's never a situation where they need to make an informed decision which could be affected by the monster's abilities: it's either deadly, or worthless.Threatening Reach is a bit different. It has tactical value even if you know it's there. Not disclosing the existence of the ability is against the grain of 4e, but it's not an inherently &quot;unfair&quot; ability. As a player, I do feel it'd be dirty pool to not disclose that ability until it's too late for one PC, but the ability itself is just fine.IMHO a similar ability which should get some early disclosure would be a damaging aura -- say, if you attack a given critter or start your turn next to him, you take automatic damage. That's something IMHO the players should learn beforehand, but isn't inherently unfair.Cheers, -- N</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nifft, post: 4349512, member: 6562"] Agree. There are traits that a monster can have which the PCs must "discover": - Defenses - Fire resistance - Half damage from ranged melee attacks There are attacks which the PCs will "discover" when they're subject to them: - Breath weapon - Ongoing damage - Status effects But attacks and defenses aren't "unfair". Critters are expected to have some of both, and that's cool. [b]"Unfair" abilities are those for which a disproportionate value is derived from information asymmetry.[/b] Take the Earseeker example: if the players knew such things existed, they'd always take an appropriate counter-measure when listening at a door. The monster is worthless unless the players don't know to expect it, because there's never a situation where they need to make an informed decision which could be affected by the monster's abilities: it's either deadly, or worthless. Threatening Reach is a bit different. It has tactical value even if you know it's there. Not disclosing the existence of the ability is against the grain of 4e, but it's not an inherently "unfair" ability. As a player, I do feel it'd be dirty pool to not disclose that ability until it's too late for one PC, but the ability itself is just fine. IMHO a similar ability which should get some early disclosure would be a damaging aura -- say, if you attack a given critter or start your turn next to him, you take automatic damage. That's something IMHO the players should learn beforehand, but isn't inherently unfair. Cheers, -- N [/QUOTE]

Verification