Ways to assess an encounter early

[KarinsDad]

WHOA there cowboy! No no no. First of all you don't know what subtle details might give away all sorts of things. Second of all and most importantly exactly what the lore is for any given monster is entirely up to the DM. The DEFAULT lore is outlined in PHB/RC, but a LOT of monsters have unique lore blocks and it is always up to the DM exactly what he tells and how he conveys that information in detail.

Stop trying to foist the DM job on the rules and then complaining the rules don't do a good job of it. If you want things exactly a certain way, you make it that way. The rules are there to give you good usable defaults and a framework, not solve all of your problems for you.

The problem is that many DMs follow the rules as written.

It's all nice and well to say "Well, the DM can change that", but many DMs won't.

Cowboy.

And no, I don't think that the Wizard from 100 feet away should know that the tiny little wand with runes on it is a dead giveaway for Fire spells instead of Acid spells. Or, spells at all for that matter.

I have no problem with monster racial knowledge. There should definitely be a rule for that. I have a serious problem with monster individual knowledge (i.e. this is a cutter, so he does this, this is a hexer, so he does that). This Lich casts fire spells and that Lich casts cold spells, based on their name in a book.

The very concept that a monster has the word "Cutter" (or even "Minion") in its name is illogical. That's handing out metagame information that the PCs shouldn't necessarily have and the real problem with this is that it is not an optional rule for lazy DMs, it's the default.

The default is the opposite of what you just stated. The default is to make the game easier for lazy DMs. Stop trying to foist the DM job on the rules because that is what the default does: giving out the PC (and hence player) monster knowledge with a roll as opposed to giving it out with a DM description.

 

[Ferghis]

Realistically, KarinsDad is right.

But movies often have the main characters pull out a useful tidbit not only about R.O.U.S.'s but even about fencing styles. So having the knowledge is certainly cinematic. And the main issue for me, as a player, is not the encyclopedic knowledge or realistic lack thereof. It's to figure out if I should use my daily powers or my action point. So it also makes sense, from a game-perspective, to allow PCs to know information that would help make them make that determination.

 

[KarinsDad]

And the main issue for me, as a player, is not the encyclopedic knowledge or realistic lack thereof. It's to figure out if I should use my daily powers or my action point. So it also makes sense, from a game-perspective, to allow PCs to know information that would help make them make that determination.

Except for minions, does it really matter if a PC uses his Dailies and Action Points against specific foes and not other foes? Doesn't killing or seriously wounding a standard monster mean that there's a fair chance that the PCs will take less damage overall as wounding an elite since action economy (i.e. number of foes) is often more important to winding up an encounter than the power of any given foe?

Personally as a player, I do not care what kind of monsters I damage, as long as I am damaging monsters. Also as a player, I don't want to know if the power that a monster just used is an Encounter power, an At Will, or a Rechargable one. That takes the fun out of an encounter. If the PCs get slammed by a power, my goal is to kill that monster, assuming that it has the same or similar powers up its sleeve. I don't really want to know which monsters have the mega powers and how often they get to use them before they get to use them (shy of known racial abilities that all monsters of that race have). That feels like cheating to me. The monsters shouldn't know my capabilities either (unless of course we have been in combat against each other previously). A DM shouldn't roll "PC checks" by the monsters to determine that a given PC is a Wizard (as opposed to some other type of spell caster) and use that knowledge tactically for the monsters either.

Yes, it is a game, but I prefer to play the game by reacting to what my PC observes as opposed to the DM handing out monster knowledge information like candy. For one thing, that feels a bit like railroading when the DM gives out knowledge information that precludes one of my attacks as being optimal. Information that the PCs observe? That's a different issue.

 

[Ferghis]

Except for minions, does it really matter if a PC uses his Dailies and Action Points against specific foes and not other foes? Doesn't killing or seriously wounding a standard monster mean that there's a fair chance that the PCs will take less damage overall as wounding an elite since action economy (i.e. number of foes) is often more important to winding up an encounter than the power of any given foe?

Although knowing the powers of specific foes is tactically valuable, it's just an advantage, and I don't see a problem with living in ignorance in that respect. What I need is knowledge of the encounter as a whole that helps me decide whether to use those dailies (and AP) or not as early as possible. I must stress the importance of sorting this information out early, because most (if not all) dailies have much more impact on an encounter if used early in an encounter. I'm not just talking about dailies that have encounter-long benefits. Even those dailies that merely do a lot of damage, and help remove one enemy (or more) provide an advantage that is best used as early as possible. Here's the part that is disputable: I think that it's this early use of player resources that moves a tough encounter from a potential TPK to not-a-TPK. But whether you agree with that or not, it's pretty indisputable that dailies and APs are best used in tougher encounters, and there should be means to adequately make that determination as early as possible, or at least earlier than "oh my gods, we're all dying..."

The monsters shouldn't know my capabilities either (unless of course we have been in combat against each other previously). A DM shouldn't roll "PC checks" by the monsters to determine that a given PC is a Wizard (as opposed to some other type of spell caster) and use that knowledge tactically for the monsters either.

I agree in part with this. PCs of a certain level can be (in)famous enough to be somewhat well-known. However, the books fail to adequately highlight that DMs should play as if monsters did not know of the extra punishment that a fighter can impose on a marked creature, and so on. In that sense, you make a very good point.

Yes, it is a game, but I prefer to play the game by reacting to what my PC observes as opposed to the DM handing out monster knowledge information like candy. For one thing, that feels a bit like railroading when the DM gives out knowledge information that precludes one of my attacks as being optimal. Information that the PCs observe? That's a different issue.

I agree that the rules should support realistic play. The point many (including myself) are making in this thread is that there are many clues that our characters pick up that the DM cannot possibly convey in narrative terms. We may disagree (or agree) that a fencer may not be able to tell the rank of a marine in civilian clothing, but a combat veteran should be able to gather some extra knowledge about another creature's combat abilities simply by observing them (relative to someone who, like me in real life, has no experience with combat). Conveying these details would be laborious for the DM and a player might not have the means to use the details to frame a guess regarding any given opponent's abilities. Giving away some of the crunch is shorthand, mirroring for the gaming group what would go on on for the characters in the imaginary gaming environment.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the whole topic is one of those "don't overthink things" and "rules are tools" issues.

Use the rules how you need to use the rules in order to get what you want out of the game. No rules designers can make a game that perfectly fits the needs and desires of every player or DM, nor work perfectly in every situation. I don't think even with 4e, as comprehensive as it is, that the designers intended to make their rules be all-encompassing.

So, when the situation makes sense then use the stock good old monster knowledge rule right out of the book. If it doesn't quite make sense or doesn't do what you want at that point, then don't use it or use alternate lore, etc. If it best suites your style of play then couch everything in crunchy terms or in more narrative terms.

If you don't like monster knowledge at all, then just get rid of it, but remember that the same issues still exist, you'll just have to come up with some other way to handle them (which might be better for you).

PERSONALLY I'm a bit vague. I don't usually describe things in terms of crunch. When players want to make knowledge rolls and get answers then I give them some answers, but they may not learn everything and what they learn is going to be more like telling them which defenses are lower or higher and which monsters look more dangerous. OTOH I don't really hide the numbers either. When we're doing a fight I don't use a shield and I don't care if the players figure out the numbers, that's fine. Usually they're so busy thinking about the plot they don't do a lot of worrying about number twinking, but some players pay more attention to them than others. If a player happens to blow up a daily on some minions, oh well. It doesn't happen that often and I don't TRY to get them to make mistakes. They do know that minions exist and can often guess which monsters are likely to be ones.