Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 4383867" data-attributes="member: 2011">Do you really think that combats are decided upon that?Or, it is just a rationalization for you POV?As an example, Defenses are not information that Monster Skill Checks supply. Do you think that Defense information (i.e. which Defense is weakest) should be given to all Wizards, just so that he doesn't guess wrong?I really don't understand your POV here. Why would you want the DM to tell you "Hey guys, these are the ones the Wizard should do Scorching Burst on."?Sure, the DM has to give information to the players, but come on. If he is going to the level of explicitly telling players monster roles (or even strongly hinting at them), he might as well play the game for the players.How so? Because a player might use an Encounter or Daily power on a minion?Maybe that player should try an At-Will power on opponents first and not be so gung ho on using his big guns right away.Bad player decisions should not be blamed on them not knowing metagaming information. Bad player decisions are merely that, bad player decisions.Do you tell the players exactly how to solve a riddle, just so that they will not make a mistake?The DMG appears to disagree with this assessment.Page 54Nothing in the role section or the Monster Skill Checks rules indicates that the DM should tell the players what the monster roles are.It does indicate that sometimes, players should know who the Leaders are, but Leader is not a role. Leader is a quality that can apply to any role except minion. But, that does not mean that the non-leaders in such are group are minions or are known as minions (they could be soldiers or skirmishers or something else). Knowing one does not mean knowing the inverse.Sure, a Brute looks tough. He might be a leader in a group.But, Halfling Stouts have the same armor and better weapons than Halfling Thieves. Why should you tell the players that the Stouts are the Minions and the Thieves are the Skirmishers?On the other hand, some minions like Decrepit Skeletons do have observable clues that they might be more fragile. That's ok as long as it is part of the normal monster description.Argumentum Ad VerecundiamThen why did Mike not put this suggestion into the rules? It's a fairly obvious question that has come up in many people's games practically right away.Role is not something that is discernable by Monster Skill Checks, so its fairly obvious that the designers probably did not want that metagaming knowledge to be freely distributed early combat to players. "That guy over this is using a Bow, he might be artillery". Nothing wrong with a player figuring that out on his own. But, from actual non-metagaming information supplied.The excerpt link you provided above says nothing about letting players know which monsters are minions and which are not. The rules says nothing about it. The rules, on the other hand, talk about allowing players information on type, keyword, resistances, etc. with monster skill checks.The DMG indicates that some encounters should have groups of creatures with no obvious leaders.So, what we have disagrees with your assertions here. This appears to be a game style preference on your part so that players don't make mistakes in combat. But, the text does not support your POV as being the designer's preference.</blockquote>

Verification