Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ScipioX 03-05-07, 02:16 PM	I've always been a bit unsure about how much information the PC's should have about when NPC's are using feats or abilities. For instance, would the PC's know when: a NPC used power attack? a NPC has elusive target ....and uses it to avoid power attack damage? a NPC uses combat expertise? a NPC readies an action? ....and what would trigger the action? a PC is hit with sneak attack damage? ....and could they differentiate it from skirmish damage or sudden strike damage? AFAIK, the rules are generally silent on these kinds of issues, so opinions with some explanation are the best I'm hoping for.
RobbyPants 03-05-07, 02:32 PM	The best advice I can give is to be descriptive in the types of attacks they're making. Remember that the actual mechanics aren't so much important as the end result. Allow the players to draw from it what they will. Here are a few examples: power attack - he lunges at the orc with his greatsword, putting every ounce of his being into the mighty attack... elusive target - as the orc lunges at him, he takes advantage of the orc's overswing, and sidesteps the attack... combat expertise - he takes a defensive stance, parrying the attacks away with his sword... readies an action - he pulls back his bow and aims it at the wizard, holding the arrow as if waiting for something... PC is hit with sneak attack damage - as soon as he gets to your side, you see him make a quick strike with his short sword, finding that perfect chink in your armor... Well, you get the idea ;)
tarkin 03-05-07, 02:37 PM	I do what Robby does.
HellflameArcanite 03-05-07, 04:05 PM	I'd make it as clear as it would be in the real world that somebody was sacrificing accuracy for power, or taking more attacks at the expense of accuracy...but RobbyPants beat me to it.
Platstud 03-05-07, 04:16 PM	I generally agree here. Try to give hints in your descriptions, but remember: the PCs don't know what a hit point is, they don't know they have a +3 attack bonus and they don't know what level they are, but the players do. What this means is that by keeping the players guessing about what feats and tactics their enemies are using, you prevent the players from figuring out the exact stats of the enemies. Something their characters are not supposed to know.
FrostHammer 03-05-07, 04:45 PM	Hmm...if could be fun to keep PCs and enemies guessing alike. Let's say you have Robilar's Gambit. You don't always have to activate it, and your enemies will be too scared to hit you because they're afraid of eating an AoO!
Veggiesama 03-05-07, 09:03 PM	I'm in the opposite camp. Obviously, description is great in all circumstances, especially if it fits with their special ability. But I come from very combat-heavy groups, and when the DM decides to withhold valuable information every chance he gets, then it can become frustrating for the players. Let's say you have a dragon with sorcerer levels going up against a dwarven rogue (bear with me). You describe the dwarf as suddenly feeling like, "Your whole body erupts with flames, lashing against your exposed limbs and neck". You call for a Reflex save, and the dwarf fails by a point. He had assumed the dragon used a breath weapon, but if it cast fireball (or something), he should have received a +2 bonus (thanks to dwarven resistance to spells) and taken no damage (thanks to evasion). It's an extreme example, but the DM shouldn't be required to remember every nuance of a player's character to help them out. That's the player's job! (note: I would just say "he's casting a spell" rather than name it off). Another example is if you have a party of low-damage dealers up against a vampire. Maybe they think it's only a vampire spawn, so they use silver weapons. They become confused when their non-magical silver weapons deal no damage (DR 10/magic and silver). Maybe one of them gets the brilliant idea to start using piercing weapons instead ("We have to stake its heart!"). In these cases, players with prior metagaming knowledge are advantaged, and so Knowledge skills (or common sense or whatever) should be used to gain "metagaming knowledge" rather than simple interchangeable descriptions. My final example is if an enemy wizard casts a spell, and the DM calls for a Will save (especially pertinent in games with action points). Players with Spellcraft should have an opportunity to see what it is before they get a chance to roll. If everyone succeeds, does the DM say, "He tried to cast a spell, but failed", and/or, "You see a scary skeletal figment appear in front of you, but you shake it off", and/or finally, "Fortunately, you saved against death as well." Players will use that knowledge to play more wisely if they know they are against an opponent with instant death spells. As I write more and more house rules for my game, I increasingly find that the more knowledge you can impart to players (based on their skills/cleverness/etc.), the more tactically interesting battles will become. Sprinkle liberally with descriptions of the more interesting maneuvers, and there you go.
Platstud 03-05-07, 09:12 PM	I'm in the opposite camp. Obviously, description is great in all circumstances, especially if it fits with their special ability. But I come from very combat-heavy groups, and when the DM decides to withhold valuable information every chance he gets, then it can become frustrating for the players. You make a good point. Just last session we were fighting a monster who was immune to flanking. However, since I didn't know, I automatically added the bonus as usual. I didn't find out until later that I shouldn't have.
Kradlo 03-05-07, 10:20 PM	RobbyPants handles it pretty much the same as I do. Description is the way to go, and let the players pick up the clues from there. The GM should be fairly clear in his descriptions, as it's usually obvious if a dragon casts a spell or breathes out a gout of fire. As for players factoring in effects to which to baddies may be immune, I usually try to stay on top of such things. When dealing damage, it's a good habit to state it as, "11 points, plus 3 points of fire," for flaming swords, etc. The GM can ascertain if the creature has damage reduction, energy resistance, etc., and factor that in accordingly. And as for metagaming, that's a topic well covered in this forum. I'm dead set against it, but I'll happily reward players that take the prerequisite Knowledge skills to figure out what they're facing.