Ways to assess an encounter early

[Magil]

By RAW, beating the hard DC for a knowledge check in the appropriate skill for monster knowledge tells you its origin, resistances/vulnerabilities, and what its powers do (page 130, Rules Compendium). I usually let my players know its level on a moderate DC along with the other information a moderate DC does. I only withhold that information on particularly unusual or unique creatures, but even then I try to drop general ideas of what the monster can do and how powerful it appears.

 

[pemerton]

I know many DMs that reveal defenses, some early as a policy, some eventually (after several attack rolls) as a convenience.

I know some DMs that will occasionally reveal an enemy or encounter's level, but this is usually just to discuss game or encounter design, and isn't related to player character actions.

I know some DMs who roll their dice openly, allowing players to figure out attack bonuses and damage formula.

What kind of information would you be willing to reveal to an inquisitive player, and how or when would you make that information available?

For monster names, histories, behaviours, powers, resistances etc I use the Monster Knowledge rules.

For monster defences, I generally reveal these either when it would be convenient, or in order to taunt my players. If neither applies, then they probably won't be revealed.

I roll all my dice in the open, and often tell the players - or mutter to myself in a mannter that they might easily overhear - what is required for a hit, a save, etc.

I don't generally reveal creature levels, but will reveal encounter levels when appropriate for taunting or kudos purposes, or if the players ask (generally after a tough encounter).

This leads me to the following question: how do I, as a player, tell the (semi-frequent) level+3 enemy from the (very rare) level+5 enemy?

I don't think that individual enemy levels are as important as that. It's knowing the encounter level that is more important!

don't be afraid to use a Daily at level 5+ simply in order to save surges. Your adventuring day is more likely to be over from lack of surges than from lack of Dailies (encounter powers are still good!)

a team of 5 level 9+ has 15 attack dailies, somewhere between 5 and 10 utility dailies, and a bunch of item powers. Generally it's more the point of which attack/form/stance/augmenting or sustainable daily powers would be most effective for the encounter.

Yes to both of these. The players in my game routinely push on with few or no dailies left, provided they have some hit points and surges remaining. (Sometimes they push on even without those, if there is no other choice!)

Action points and dailies are there to be used! And you can't use them if you're dead.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Personally, I give players lots of information about monsters if they make a decent roll. I will tell the players the appoximate power level, the role of the monster and some of the abilities they could expect it to use. (snip)

Ditto.

I also disclose which monsters are minions at the beginning of combat and also disclose ACs and NADs before they roll.

 

[Ferghis]

I don't think that individual enemy levels are as important as that. It's knowing the encounter level that is more important!

In that case, same question with respect to encounter level: how do players distinquish between encounter level +3 and encounter level +5, for example?

 

[GreyICE]

In that case, same question with respect to encounter level: how do players distinquish between encounter level +3 and encounter level +5, for example?

Should depend heavily on the DM's description. Remember, the DM can tell players things they would know in character. So if the players see 3 on-level Elite Ogre Brutes, surrounded by 5 on level standards and a dozen or so minions the DM can say "those Ogres look really tough, and some of the surrounding monsters are no pushover, your characters know this will be a very hard fight to win."

That actually sidesteps the entire question of metagaming, and lets the players know if they want to have a hope they have to go all out (and they may be better off retreating).

 

[Ferghis]

I find the distinction between in-character knowledge and out-of-character knowledge often misleading. My 10th level fighter knows things about fighting that I never will, and saying that an enemy has AC 23 is an excellent way for the player to approximate the knowledge of the character. I agree that the game is more fun when things are conveyed in a more narrative manner, but this shouldn't undermine the players' ability to actually play the game. In other words, it shouldn't be a reason to deny players necessary details.

That actually sidesteps the entire question of metagaming, and lets the players know if they want to have a hope they have to go all out (and they may be better off retreating).

I have to admit that I disagree. I think a vague narrative description of an encounter level that is only a bit above their level will not differ much from one that is barely likely to lead to a TPK. That is, unless you use certain keywords or some kind of short hand so that the players can decipher the narrative into more specific information.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I have to admit that I disagree. I think a vague narrative description of an encounter level that is only a bit above their level will not differ much from one that is barely likely to lead to a TPK. That is, unless you use certain keywords or some kind of short hand so that the players can decipher the narrative into more specific information.

I agree with your disagreement.

As with DMs describing a particular monster as being threatening or powerful, well...pretty much all encounters and monsters look threatening and powerful. Well, minions may or may not appear individually threatening. But taking a dragon encounter as an example, how do you describe the difference between a fledgling and a wyrm?

They're both big, scary, arrogant, and obviously powerful. But how relatively powerful are they? The only visible difference that springs to mind is size; one's only the size of a horse, while the other's the size of a house. And that's why size is my 'threat identifier' for dragons; it's simple, easy to understand and easy to describe in-character. ("This dragon is about X meters or feet from head to rump.")

 

[GreyICE]

I have to admit that I disagree. I think a vague narrative description of an encounter level that is only a bit above their level will not differ much from one that is barely likely to lead to a TPK. That is, unless you use certain keywords or some kind of short hand so that the players can decipher the narrative into more specific information.

That's why you only hand out warnings like that for EL+5 encounters. You don't have any warnings at all for EL+3, because the PCs should win that (while exhausting many resources).

The point is to keep such warnings infrequent, and make sure to chuck a few meatgrinders at the PCs, so that when the DM tells them "this could be really incredibly tough" they know that the DM means it.

One encounter last session had 4 PCs go down over the course of the encounter, and one had two failed death saves before it was over. I didn't warn them in any way it would be tough.

 

[pemerton]

I find the distinction between in-character knowledge and out-of-character knowledge often misleading.

<snip>

I think a vague narrative description of an encounter level that is only a bit above their level will not differ much from one that is barely likely to lead to a TPK. That is, unless you use certain keywords or some kind of short hand so that the players can decipher the narrative into more specific information.

I agree that the incharacter/out-of-character distinction is not all that helpful, especially in a game that is as metagame heavy and metagame driven as 4e.

In that case, same question with respect to encounter level: how do players distinquish between encounter level +3 and encounter level +5, for example?

On this, I expect the players to (i) trust me, and (ii) suck it up! They're playing 18th level paragon PCs who have an absurd depth of resources and capabilities to draw upon, and I expect them to deploy those resources. I also expect the players to draw inferences from what is going on in the fight: for example, if it is round 3, the hydra still has a couple of heads left, and the salamanders have taken close to 100 hits each and are still standing, plus more salamanders are approaching, I expect the players to infer that they need to pull out all the stops.

At 1st level I would be more forgiving, but would achieve this at the encounter design level - ie no 6th level encounters for 1st level PCs - than at the "deliberately feed info to players to facilitate their choices" level.

You XPed my hydra encounter post (thanks!) which shows my method at work. Here are
two other, earlier posts that illustrate the same approach, of pouring on the pressure and expecting the players to work it out.

If I was going to try and flip this around to answer the question in your OP, which is framed from the player's point of view, I would say: know your GM! If your GM is running in "lair assault" mode, where everything is to the death, and TPKs are the players' problem, you might have to invest heavily in monster knowledge, use that to work out the attack and to hit of the monster powers, from that work out their levels, and then from that work out the encounter level.

If you've got a GM taking an approach more like mine, you can be more confident that, while a defeat will be a defeat, it won't just be a "TPK brings everything to a dead-end" defeat. I'll always find some way to keep things moving, even through a TPK.

But I'd still say, if in doubt, use your resources! Cause you can't use them if you're dead!

 

[Ferghis]

Thanks for the extra examples!

Cause you can't use them if you're dead!

Precisely what happened in one of my games. I was a player, and we managed to sniff out where one of the bad bosses lived, and walked in for a "fair fight." I don't want to go into details because (a) I don't want to put the DM on trial here and (b) we, the players, didn't try many of the things I covered in this thread, so we have ourselves to blame.