The first one relates to monsters and their resistances because idk how other dm's approach it. I don't feel obligated to tell the players what they monsters are and are not resistance, immune, or weak against. This bugs them as I generally will let them roll to hit and roll dmg before I announce the monster is either immune, resistance, or the damage type heals them.
Is that the proper way to approach that? I generally give new players a mulligan and within reason allow one or two players to attempt skill checks to see if they know anything. Is this too harsh or just right?
The other question is the BBEG that my group of 7 players (all level 5 and 6) is getting ready to face off to finish the plot off is capable of casting blink, no one in the party thus far has a reliable way to inflict damage when the BBEG is on the ethereal plane, but if they think of it they can all hold actions and hope he reappears by them so they can take their licks, is this fair?
I feel like I am being reasonable, maybe a tad harsh, but what is the game without struggle right?
Players/Characters learn by doing. They learn by absorbing the information the DM gives them. They only know what the DM tells them.
I see no reason to front load the information on a monster. I don't tell my players anything beyond a colorful explanation of what the creature looks like and seems to be doing. My party has never once been upset about it.
I recently had an encounter with a creature that was resistant to physical damage. I explained an attack like this: "You watch as the arrow connects with the creature, it pierces the flesh and a small trickle of blood flows. You have shot a bow for many years, you've taken down many things while hunting, something about that shot just felt like it wasn't right." I immediately watched 2 of my players start taking notes, they were trying to figure out how to beat him. The barbarian walked up to him and smacked him with his maul: "You drive the maul into the creature, watching as the muscles ripple from the impact. Where most creatures would double over from a strike like that, this creature looks at you almost like it's annoyed." They figured out that this guy wasn't playing fair and had resistances, then proceeded to demolish him.
As to your BBEG, that's a fine mechanic. However it's advisable to give them a hint if things start to feel one sided. "You see a wisp of wind kick up just as the boss blinks into existance and he....", "Dust starts to whirl on the ground and the boss pops into view, he....", "There's a shimmer in the air, you can see the faint outline of the boss, and *pop* he comes into view...".These type of leading phrases should eventually give them the idea that it's important to watch what's happening.
If the party doesn't know much about the monster, I let them attack and then say, "Your attack lands, but you feel like it didn't do as much damage as you felt like it should have," or even "The crossbow bolt slams into the golem's head with a thud, but he doesn't seem to react. You question whether it accomplished anything at all."
A slightly dissenting position here: there is a difference between Player knowledge, and Character knowledge.
DMs tend to not like it when a Player uses knowledge that the a Character would not have - and rightly so.
Inversely, Players should be annoyed when they don't get to utilize knowledge that the Character would have.
In your case of creature resistances, I would ask myself "would any of the Characters have any knowledge of these creatures?", or "How common is knowledge about these creatures?".
If the Ranger grew up in a region beset with Trolls ( hence her reason for becoming a Ranger; to defend her village ), then I would give that Player the instant knowledge "Kate, Brunelda knows that trolls regenerate, but are vulnerable to fire".
If no Character has direct past experience with the creature I might decide that knowledge of the fact "Grumpkins are afraid of corn-flakes" to be known rarely ( DC 15 ), and either check it against each of the Characters's passive Nature skill and tell those Players outright "You know from your studies, that Grumpkins are terrified of corn-flakes", or allow them to roll with that DC target.
In the case of none of the Characters having neither direct experience, or enough knowledge to know/remember vulnerabilities, then they just have to "learn to do by doing", and I'd follow TexasDevin's approach - and the Players can grumble all they want :p
-----
As for your BBEG, your idea of "holding actions" is sound.
I don't mind making opponents unfairly strong; I don't try and create fair fights - but I do give the players the opportunity to discover unexpected facts about the encounter ( he can cast blink ), and allow them to devise strategies for dealing with that twist, or avoiding the combat. If they don't avail themselves of those opportunities to find out more about their opponent before confronting them - that's on them.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Great stuff thanks y'all! Addendum, I typically take into account how common a monster is or if a character would have knowledge and then clue them in on traits appropriately, like everyone would know all about goblins and more common creatures, and maybe a barbarian would have special knowledge of a certain enemy based on where he grew up.
It seems like par for the course to not know what a monster can resist or completely shrug off until you actually learn it, or your character would know it from before. I don't see you doing anything inappropriate here.
But I will say that there could be many factors that may frustrate players aside from simply not knowing resistances beforehand. I'll share an example, with the caveat that I am certainly not saying that you are doing this. So, many moons ago, I participated in an LOTR game, and we decided to play some hobbits and an elf, just to follow some of the same "heroism thrust upon them" kind of tropes. The very first encounter we had was against an actual ringwraith. No warning, no opportunities to hide, or other bones thrown to the PCs, just swift and unsatisfying death. When we complained, the Narrator said, "What? Given the nature of the threat at stake, the Big Bad would have sent a nazgul!" While that may have been the case, we as characters had no knowledge of the true stakes of the adventure; more importantly, we as players didn't have any clue about the true stakes of the adventure. Our characters died one encounter into the game, and only the Narrator had any clue as to why. Needless to say, he was fired...
Like I said, I'm not saying you've done that (at least, not according to what you've shared), only that, if players are complaining about something that seems perfectly reasonable to the DM, then perhaps something else is creating that conflict. If it continues, maybe talking with the players about their concerns would be in order?
Again just kind of emphasizing things here, but Rangers already do have special abilities they can use to find out things about creatures, you don't need to create any additional mechanics or offer additional ways to do this. Its literally a class ability to find out what resistance a creature has.
Using Knowledge rolls, and giving some rationale as to when to use them vs. having them automatically succeed, is now "extra mechanics"?
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Different DMs are going to have different emphases or preference in gameplay, often depending on the circumstances. BigKahuna, for example, likely has a game where specific class mechanics are a strong factor for the success and fulfillment of the group's experience. Other tables might be a little more "fast and loose" with things like this, or may face a situation where no classes with such a feature are involved. It's a "simulation vs. narrative aid" type of thing. YMMV
Different DMs are going to have different emphases or preference in gameplay, often depending on the circumstances. BigKahuna, for example, likely has a game where specific class mechanics are a strong factor for the success and fulfillment of the group's experience. Other tables might be a little more "fast and loose" with things like this, or may face a situation where no classes with such a feature are involved. It's a "simulation vs. narrative aid" type of thing. YMMV
Totally agree; everyone's table differs.
I don't see what I wrote as "inventing new mechanics", though, it's pretty much core mechanics - although I'm not 100% sure that BigKahuna was saying that about my post in particular. They may just have been referencing the Ranger part.
Personally, I am more "simulationist" in my approach; I wouldn't nerf other players' knowledge rolls because it somehow detracts from the Ranger's advantage. That seems "gamist" to me, although "gamist" is a perfectly valid approach ( it is a game, after all :p ), just not for me.
To me the Ranger's ability adds another avenue where the party can figure out the creature's abilities: past experience, general knowledge rolls, and now Ranger ability.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'll agree with that. These are avenues to a similar end. I've always looked at the class features as somewhat more automatic, where an Int check would have risk of failure.
As long as you're giving the players and their characters an opportunity to learn about resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities with the skill checks, then you have the right approach. However, you shouldn't expect your players to pretend like they don't know a monster has a certain resistance or vulnerability when they already know based on meta-knowledge. For example, almost everyone who plays D&D knows about a troll's weaknesses or a vampire's. In these cases, it's best just to assume that it's common knowledge in the setting as well.
For the BBEG encounter, blink is something the characters could expect to encounter at 5th or 6th level, so it's not unreasonable. It also adds a memorable tactical challenge to the encounter. As long as the encounter is balanced overall, this particular spell should be a non-issue.
A couple posters also brought up AC and hit points; personally, I think it's pointless to try to completely obscure these things. Instead, you can use narrative cues to suggest to players that a monster has a high AC (tough hide, plate armor, etc.). You can even give them a rough ballpark on the actual number, as players can generally determine a monster's AC with a couple hits and misses anyway. Similarly, with hit points, I make it clear to players when a monster is injured and how injured it seems.
Giving your players these details helps them make better tactical decisions, which results in better combat encounters. The challenge an encounter provides shouldn't be based on a guessing game.
The idea that giving your players and their characters a chance to learn these details with skill checks invalidates some minor class abilities is wrongheaded. It implies something about the world (only certain classes can learn a monster's traits) that is nonsensical. As JediShadow noted above, only the abilities are automatic, so they're better than a skill check would be anyway.
I have rough descriptors ( injured, bloodied, badly hurt, etc. ) - which correspond roughly to the percentage of hit points left ( I don't always get it right ), but the players don't know the initial or current HP. I guess they could track the amount of damage they've done and get a rough idea of what HP the creatures started at - but they don't.
As for AC - I will typically tell the players an opponent AC, but only after they hit successfully. Since it's a table rule that players roll attack and damage dice simultaneously, this means that players just tell me "I missed", or "I did _____ points of Piercing damage".
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
That will likely streamline combat. AC is also something rather simple to deduce over a short amount of time as well. If you attack twice, roll a 14 and a 15, and the DM says you hit only once, then you've just learned the AC (if you payed attention).
And I like the idea of the rough descriptors. It can give the PCs an idea of how successful their combat has been without everything devolving into a numbers game.
The first one relates to monsters and their resistances because idk how other dm's approach it. I don't feel obligated to tell the players what they monsters are and are not resistance, immune, or weak against. This bugs them as I generally will let them roll to hit and roll dmg before I announce the monster is either immune, resistance, or the damage type heals them.
Is that the proper way to approach that? I generally give new players a mulligan and within reason allow one or two players to attempt skill checks to see if they know anything. Is this too harsh or just right?
The other question is the BBEG that my group of 7 players (all level 5 and 6) is getting ready to face off to finish the plot off is capable of casting blink, no one in the party thus far has a reliable way to inflict damage when the BBEG is on the ethereal plane, but if they think of it they can all hold actions and hope he reappears by them so they can take their licks, is this fair?
I feel like I am being reasonable, maybe a tad harsh, but what is the game without struggle right?
It depends on the particulars of the situation, really. On the one hand, players certainly are not entitled to know everything about a monster and may indeed not know its resistances, immunities, orweaknesses (or in some cases, anything at all about it beyond what they've directly witnessed it doing), and indeed I wholly support making the PCs struggle. You are wholly correct in believing that you are not obligated to reveal a monster's immunities, resistances, or weaknesses.
That said, it is also worth noting that PCs need to have some level of rational expectations about the world their characters exist in in order to make meaningful decisions, and that it is a DM's responsibility to provide information about the world. In real life, a person can tell a lot about a creature they're unfamiliar with just by looking at it, and also knows a bit about a lot of dangerous wildlife that they've never personally encountered (though, also worth noting, some of the things they "know" are occasionally inaccurate / pop culture myths that can get them into trouble in a real encounter with dangerous wildlife). A DM that is overly stingy in providing details that a person would reasonably know in-character (either through prior in-character knowledge or simply providing context clues when describing the monster and its behavior) is doing their game a disservice. A DM who just says "You see a monster. Roll for initiative" is not providing a good description. Same goes for the sort of DM that completely hides hit points with no indication, either flavorful or numeric, of how hurt a creature is (a real person can generally tell the difference between an attack that brought something to within an inch of its life and one that didn't even phase the target).
So: Yes, it is reasonable for players to not know the resistances of every monster the encounter. But also, make sure that you are including evocative descriptions of a monster that might allow players to make reasonable inferences, and also consider what it would be reasonable for them to know about their world already (for example, consider just how much you know in the real world about many dangerous creatures that you've never personally encountered, even though you're probably not a career outdoorsman or biologist or some other such representation of someone with trained knowledge skills concerning wildlife. A person shouldn't need a skill check to have some idea of what a tiger is, for instance. Instead, a skill check would reveal more detailed and specialized useful information about a tiger).
My question is two fold,
The first one relates to monsters and their resistances because idk how other dm's approach it. I don't feel obligated to tell the players what they monsters are and are not resistance, immune, or weak against. This bugs them as I generally will let them roll to hit and roll dmg before I announce the monster is either immune, resistance, or the damage type heals them.
Is that the proper way to approach that? I generally give new players a mulligan and within reason allow one or two players to attempt skill checks to see if they know anything. Is this too harsh or just right?
The other question is the BBEG that my group of 7 players (all level 5 and 6) is getting ready to face off to finish the plot off is capable of casting blink, no one in the party thus far has a reliable way to inflict damage when the BBEG is on the ethereal plane, but if they think of it they can all hold actions and hope he reappears by them so they can take their licks, is this fair?
I feel like I am being reasonable, maybe a tad harsh, but what is the game without struggle right?
Players/Characters learn by doing. They learn by absorbing the information the DM gives them. They only know what the DM tells them.
I see no reason to front load the information on a monster. I don't tell my players anything beyond a colorful explanation of what the creature looks like and seems to be doing. My party has never once been upset about it.
I recently had an encounter with a creature that was resistant to physical damage. I explained an attack like this: "You watch as the arrow connects with the creature, it pierces the flesh and a small trickle of blood flows. You have shot a bow for many years, you've taken down many things while hunting, something about that shot just felt like it wasn't right." I immediately watched 2 of my players start taking notes, they were trying to figure out how to beat him. The barbarian walked up to him and smacked him with his maul: "You drive the maul into the creature, watching as the muscles ripple from the impact. Where most creatures would double over from a strike like that, this creature looks at you almost like it's annoyed." They figured out that this guy wasn't playing fair and had resistances, then proceeded to demolish him.
As to your BBEG, that's a fine mechanic. However it's advisable to give them a hint if things start to feel one sided. "You see a wisp of wind kick up just as the boss blinks into existance and he....", "Dust starts to whirl on the ground and the boss pops into view, he....", "There's a shimmer in the air, you can see the faint outline of the boss, and *pop* he comes into view...".These type of leading phrases should eventually give them the idea that it's important to watch what's happening.
If the party doesn't know much about the monster, I let them attack and then say, "Your attack lands, but you feel like it didn't do as much damage as you felt like it should have," or even "The crossbow bolt slams into the golem's head with a thud, but he doesn't seem to react. You question whether it accomplished anything at all."
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A slightly dissenting position here: there is a difference between Player knowledge, and Character knowledge.
DMs tend to not like it when a Player uses knowledge that the a Character would not have - and rightly so.
Inversely, Players should be annoyed when they don't get to utilize knowledge that the Character would have.
In your case of creature resistances, I would ask myself "would any of the Characters have any knowledge of these creatures?", or "How common is knowledge about these creatures?".
If the Ranger grew up in a region beset with Trolls ( hence her reason for becoming a Ranger; to defend her village ), then I would give that Player the instant knowledge "Kate, Brunelda knows that trolls regenerate, but are vulnerable to fire".
If no Character has direct past experience with the creature I might decide that knowledge of the fact "Grumpkins are afraid of corn-flakes" to be known rarely ( DC 15 ), and either check it against each of the Characters's passive Nature skill and tell those Players outright "You know from your studies, that Grumpkins are terrified of corn-flakes", or allow them to roll with that DC target.
In the case of none of the Characters having neither direct experience, or enough knowledge to know/remember vulnerabilities, then they just have to "learn to do by doing", and I'd follow TexasDevin's approach - and the Players can grumble all they want :p
-----
As for your BBEG, your idea of "holding actions" is sound.
I don't mind making opponents unfairly strong; I don't try and create fair fights - but I do give the players the opportunity to discover unexpected facts about the encounter ( he can cast blink ), and allow them to devise strategies for dealing with that twist, or avoiding the combat. If they don't avail themselves of those opportunities to find out more about their opponent before confronting them - that's on them.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Great stuff thanks y'all! Addendum, I typically take into account how common a monster is or if a character would have knowledge and then clue them in on traits appropriately, like everyone would know all about goblins and more common creatures, and maybe a barbarian would have special knowledge of a certain enemy based on where he grew up.
It seems like par for the course to not know what a monster can resist or completely shrug off until you actually learn it, or your character would know it from before. I don't see you doing anything inappropriate here.
But I will say that there could be many factors that may frustrate players aside from simply not knowing resistances beforehand. I'll share an example, with the caveat that I am certainly not saying that you are doing this. So, many moons ago, I participated in an LOTR game, and we decided to play some hobbits and an elf, just to follow some of the same "heroism thrust upon them" kind of tropes. The very first encounter we had was against an actual ringwraith. No warning, no opportunities to hide, or other bones thrown to the PCs, just swift and unsatisfying death. When we complained, the Narrator said, "What? Given the nature of the threat at stake, the Big Bad would have sent a nazgul!" While that may have been the case, we as characters had no knowledge of the true stakes of the adventure; more importantly, we as players didn't have any clue about the true stakes of the adventure. Our characters died one encounter into the game, and only the Narrator had any clue as to why. Needless to say, he was fired...
Like I said, I'm not saying you've done that (at least, not according to what you've shared), only that, if players are complaining about something that seems perfectly reasonable to the DM, then perhaps something else is creating that conflict. If it continues, maybe talking with the players about their concerns would be in order?
What is BBEG?
Big bad end guy
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Different DMs are going to have different emphases or preference in gameplay, often depending on the circumstances. BigKahuna, for example, likely has a game where specific class mechanics are a strong factor for the success and fulfillment of the group's experience. Other tables might be a little more "fast and loose" with things like this, or may face a situation where no classes with such a feature are involved. It's a "simulation vs. narrative aid" type of thing. YMMV
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I'll agree with that. These are avenues to a similar end. I've always looked at the class features as somewhat more automatic, where an Int check would have risk of failure.
As long as you're giving the players and their characters an opportunity to learn about resistances, immunities, and vulnerabilities with the skill checks, then you have the right approach. However, you shouldn't expect your players to pretend like they don't know a monster has a certain resistance or vulnerability when they already know based on meta-knowledge. For example, almost everyone who plays D&D knows about a troll's weaknesses or a vampire's. In these cases, it's best just to assume that it's common knowledge in the setting as well.
For the BBEG encounter, blink is something the characters could expect to encounter at 5th or 6th level, so it's not unreasonable. It also adds a memorable tactical challenge to the encounter. As long as the encounter is balanced overall, this particular spell should be a non-issue.
A couple posters also brought up AC and hit points; personally, I think it's pointless to try to completely obscure these things. Instead, you can use narrative cues to suggest to players that a monster has a high AC (tough hide, plate armor, etc.). You can even give them a rough ballpark on the actual number, as players can generally determine a monster's AC with a couple hits and misses anyway. Similarly, with hit points, I make it clear to players when a monster is injured and how injured it seems.
Giving your players these details helps them make better tactical decisions, which results in better combat encounters. The challenge an encounter provides shouldn't be based on a guessing game.
The idea that giving your players and their characters a chance to learn these details with skill checks invalidates some minor class abilities is wrongheaded. It implies something about the world (only certain classes can learn a monster's traits) that is nonsensical. As JediShadow noted above, only the abilities are automatic, so they're better than a skill check would be anyway.
Agreed on the AC and HP.
I have rough descriptors ( injured, bloodied, badly hurt, etc. ) - which correspond roughly to the percentage of hit points left ( I don't always get it right ), but the players don't know the initial or current HP. I guess they could track the amount of damage they've done and get a rough idea of what HP the creatures started at - but they don't.
As for AC - I will typically tell the players an opponent AC, but only after they hit successfully. Since it's a table rule that players roll attack and damage dice simultaneously, this means that players just tell me "I missed", or "I did _____ points of Piercing damage".
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
That will likely streamline combat. AC is also something rather simple to deduce over a short amount of time as well. If you attack twice, roll a 14 and a 15, and the DM says you hit only once, then you've just learned the AC (if you payed attention).
And I like the idea of the rough descriptors. It can give the PCs an idea of how successful their combat has been without everything devolving into a numbers game.
Ludic: adjective (formal). showing spontaneous and undirected playfulness.