suggestion on monster stats

[evilbob]

Just like all DMs are free to use whatever rules they wish when running games, please feel free to take or ignore this suggestion as you see fit.

I had an idea about how to run monster stats and I was going to use it in my first game, but I figured I'd share with everyone first. The rule would be:


- When enemies are first encountered, the DM will automatically make an appropriate knowledge check on behalf of the PCs for each enemy type. This is done using the highest level appropriate skill for the group, with a +2 bonus for every other PC with training in that skill. Monster information is revealed based on the check.


Example:
For example, if the group encounters some human bandits and some kobold slingers (randomly of course), the DM would find the highest nature skill in the group and make one roll for the bandits and one for the slingers. The roll would get a +2 bonus for any other PCs who also are trained in nature. So if one PC had a nature of +7 and two other PCs were trained in nature, that would be a roll of +11 for each monster type.

Once that is done, the DM would fill in monster stats as appropriate for the knowledge gained. So, the group may immediately discover all defenses and any resistances and even a few other things, or they may get nothing other than "it's a humanoid creature".


Reasoning:
No one uses these skills right now! Not only would this reward players who bothered to train knowledge skills (yay!) or who have items that specifically boost monster knowledge checks, but it would be a great way to semi-randomly assist the PCs in discovering monster defenses. Plus, as it uses the entire groups' abilities, no one gets left out for not having the highest skill score: as long as they are trained, they are helping. And finally, it puts more of a burden on the DM, but at least that keeps the game moving and players don't have to remember it each time.


Issues:
Obviously, if you just post monster stat blocks: this isn't for you. However, even if you love the idea of the PCs slowly discovering defenses, there are still more things you could reveal to the PCs based on their knowledge checks.

Also, be sure to check the errata for all the latest changes to how knowledge checks on monsters work.


Open to ideas, thoughts!

 

[Antithetist]

I think this is a neat idea. Knowledge checks for monster abilities aren't something that I've really considered thus far in my DMing here, and this comes as a timely reminder. And it looks like a pretty slick way of incorporating them. I'll be using it in future. Thanks bob.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is done using the highest level appropriate skill for the group, with a +2 bonus for every other PC with training in that skill.

...

Once that is done, the DM would fill in monster stats as appropriate for the knowledge gained. So, the group may immediately discover all defenses and any resistances and even a few other things, or they may get nothing other than "it's a humanoid creature".

I think giving out the actual defense numbers of the monsters is a terrible idea.

Part of the mystery and fun of the game is trying to figure out which power a player should use on a given monster in a given situation. If the DM hands out the defenses, the players automatically know which ones hit the easiest. Why bother having players? The DM should just run the entire encounter himself. Note: there is nothing wrong with knowing that a 24 hit AC once a PC manages to roll a 24. But telling the PCs at the start of combat that the foe has AC 22 is not ok.

Another issue here is that you are also handing out bonus +2 by other PCs to the higher skilled PC. That's about as powerful as handing out multiple free Aid Anothers by the other skilled PCs. Aid Another for a skill check is a standard action and you plan to hand it out as a free action automatically.

Just because something sounds cool doesn't mean the DM should do it.

You should think of ideas to challenge your players, not spoon feed them.


As a side note, players who want to should attempt knowledge skill checks. They are within their rights to do so in the game.

But, most players (for the most part) could care less as seen by the fact that very few of them do it here on the boards. As a player, I just want to do my thing and I really don't want monster powers and weaknesses hints from the DM. Another player is perfectly within his rights to want hints and the normal monster knowledge checks give him that capability. But for those players who want to only use monster knowledge checks in dire circumstances and don't really want clues dropping like candy every encounter, the DM really shouldn't automatically force it on them since some players like to try to figure out things on their own and also like to be surprised. The game isn't as much fun if the DM hands out too much information to the point that there is no mystery or anything to discover by the PCs trying things out. And making monster knowledge checks even more potent than core rules is a way to suck the fun out of a game. IMO.

 

[Antithetist]

Another issue here is that you are also handing out bonus +2 by other PCs to the higher skilled PC. That's about as powerful as handing out multiple free Aid Anothers by the other skilled PCs. Aid Another for a skill check is a standard action and you plan to hand it out as a free action automatically.

This looks like a valid point, and probably deserves some consideration.

As for the rest... posting the results of the monster knowledge checks in sblocks, which players like KD can choose not to read, presumably solves the issue quite simply. Also, the talk of Defenses in Bob's original post may have been deceptive, since the monster knowledge rules as written will never give you a monster's defenses no matter how high your check (just name, type, keywords, powers, vulnerabilities and resistances). Were you actually proposing a change to that, Bob?

 

[stonegod]

As a player, I used monster checks all the time for my brainy characters, esp. when I think it'll tell me something useful (re: resistances, immunities, vulnerabilities). My non-brainy ones... not so much.

I agree w/ KD about the "mystery" of defenses. Though the "Mal Rules" make PbP flow quicker, I prefer to not post defenses until they are hit. I do try to give clues about such things to players though.

This is, afterall, a suggestion and goes down to DM play style. I don't think I'd adopt it, but its not illegal for others to do so.

 

[evilbob]

Well, first off, it may be worth reminding the viewers at home that KD and I tend to have polar opposite views on how we process D&D. For the most part, my response to his concerns - which are totally valid - is that things that bother him just don't bother me.

Coming from the perspective that some DMs post complete stat blocks (without a check), I was playing a bit more conservative than that, and allowing for information only based on checks - checks designed to reward what I believe are under-utilized skills. How much or how little information is certainly still up to the DM, and can run the gamut from very basic information to ...complete stat blocks.

The +2 bonuses were there to continue to reward PCs for their efforts in these skills; it seemed silly to just go off the best history check every time, for example, and make those other two guys who trained history think, "why did I bother?" At least this way they would give a solid contribution, and frankly I think it role plays well, too - everyone is contributing tidbits and helping to identify their foe.

Ultimately, I don't think one should worry about skill rolls going too high or giving out too much information: you're still the DM, you can still choose how much information you wish to distribute based on the check, or how difficult the check might be (+2 circumstance to DC because it's half in shadow, etc.). And if you don't like part of this idea: leave it out. As the title of the post implies, this is a suggestion, not a proposed rule change.

 

[KarinsDad]

Though the "Mal Rules" make PbP flow quicker, I prefer to not post defenses until they are hit.

Can someone post a link to the "Mal Rules"? I've looked around for them several times and can never find them. Thanks.

 

[LadyLaw]

Mal's Rules are located inside the sblock in this post: http://www.enworld.org/forum/living...mal-malenkirk-judge-covaithe.html#post4862357

 

[KarinsDad]

Mal's Rules are located inside the sblock in this post: http://www.enworld.org/forum/living...mal-malenkirk-judge-covaithe.html#post4862357

Thanks.

I like those rules with the exception of the post in any order. It creates all kinds of problems like "I'm unconsious, the Cleric now gets to go before me instead of after me, so I never ever have to roll a death saving throw". This can throw entire rulesets out of the game system.

 

[LadyLaw]

Yea, it could happen that way sometimes, but it definitely doesn't happen all the time. I've seen quite a few death saving throws rolled while reading around the site.

Doing it any other way slows things way down in an already slow format, which is, I think, why most people opt to allow that rule. I personally wanted to go straight initiative for my game (because I have the time), but opted to continue with the block format because people are used to it and I don't really want one round to take two weeks if each person takes 48 hours to respond on their turn. I find that the more a game drags, the easier it is to lose interest in it.