Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Rerednaw 03-12-07, 01:47 PM	I don't have an issue when running non-intelligent or animal intelligence mobs. They are directed by others, by how much ow factor, how tasty a character looks, or by written description (pack tactics). But an intelligent (8+ int) foe? How smart is too smart? If they are in communication with a smart boss, things change. I was curious how my style compares with others. Rule of thumb (some variation based on other factors): ======================================== = Inexperienced (non combat npc levels) or 'mook' types: ----------------------------------------------------- Independent fire. No ready or delaying actions unless by direction or imitation. Goes after what usually hit hardest last round. Charge and mob tactics. Experienced (class levels, non-boss): ------------------------------------ Ready actions. (Intercept charges, interrupt spell casting, etc.) Delay for flanking opportunities. Uses alternative combat actions (assist, disarm, grapple, sunder, trip, bull rush, etc.) as they come up. If any special abilites that have saves, target's foes weak saves (fort for arcane casters, reflex for divine, will for tanks.) Reactionary prioritization (hey that's a caster!) Very experienced (boss/lieutenant types): ---------------------------------------- As experienced plus Anticipates certain tactics and abilities from their foes (the party). Identifies and prioritizes targets before combat if possible. Anticipates and utilizes alternative combat actions starting from first/surprise round. Directs/outfits minions to best utilize their strengths and minimize weaknesses. Picks the terrain for the fight. ??? Is this pretty much what you folks do? If an opponent has an int of 8+ should be expect when fighting a party that they will have fliers/invisible or stealthed members? Does he expect casters and ready to interrupt? Starting off by targeting a weak save? Would you consider these things metagaming? Now sometimes the module explicitly dictates tactics. It's when they are vague that the table variation plays a larger role.
Alpha_Nerd 03-12-07, 01:58 PM	It's really hard to judge mental stats, but with enough 6 int Half-Orc PCs running around that are tactical geniuses, I don't dumb down any encounters based on monster Intelligence. Unless, of course, it's an animal or something without an INT score.
katrick 03-12-07, 02:07 PM	Anything with classes has at least one years experience fighting PC's ergo it has as broad an array of tactics as any PC Targeting saves is fine but i like to do it on a description effect. The guy with the least armor, the squishy lookin critter, the most heavily armored dude who moves slow etc. When you target a save you are generally a caster with a reasonable Wis or Int (good Sorc's don't rely on saves) As per the question a monster is never too smart kobolds and goblins are renowned for their devious tactics, the more the merrier and the more devious the more fun for roleplaying katrick
King Kashue 03-12-07, 04:16 PM	I place a big emphasis on playing bad guys appropriate to their intelligence. That said, most players don't do that, so too much of an emphasis can unbalance things. How many exceedingly complex plans are carried out by PCs with ints from 6-10? Answer: Too many :D I will say, I do the same for my characters as well. My Bear Warrior with int 6? He hits stuff and sits on stuff. If other PCs tell him to do something, he'll do it. And I consider him to understand stuff he's done a lot before, e.g., moving for a flank, waiting for haste to be cast, etc. I mention this out-of-character at the beginning, if someone hasn't played with him before, and every once and a while someone will forget, and get upset because I've moved where they didn't want me or something. Oh well, I warned them. :D Basically, the idea is "simple tactics can still be effective"... Now, my 14 int whirlwind attacker elusive target? I use virtually anything I can think of. I also don't use power attack strategically on my big guy. I use it to make my math easy :D +26 to hit? I power attack for 1. +29? I power attack for 4 :D
bitznarf 03-12-07, 05:56 PM	That said, most players don't do that, so too much of an emphasis can unbalance things. How many exceedingly complex plans are carried out by PCs with ints from 6-10? Answer: Too many :D *Looks through my stable of characters. Shuffles a few sheets around..* "14 int, 14 int, 12 int, 16 int, 18 int... maybe I should make a character with less then 12 int, just for variety. But my poor skills, what will I do without skills." *shakes my head* [/hijack]
Timlagor 03-12-07, 08:32 PM	How smart is too smart? Noble's outfits are much too smart for fighting in. ...sorry
smerwin29 03-12-07, 08:54 PM	I have a perfect example of how smart is too smart. A flying BBEG is blasting away at the PCs with a wand, and the PCs have no way of reaching him. Being a tweaked-out, three-templated, absolutely cheesed creature of the type that gives LG a bad name, he is also basically immune to all spells, all missile weapons, and anything else the PCs could even imagine. One of the PCs happens to have Ranged Disarm as a feat, so she shoots the wand out of the BBEG's hands. He goes next in the round, so we know we can't do much to stop him, but at least we know that we have a round being spared getting blasted with the wand that by itself almost goes over the GP cap for that APL. But no. Somehow the BBEG knows the difference between move actions and no action, so he decides to plummet to the ground as a free action so he can use a move action to retrieve the wand and a standard action to use it again--rather than waste the move action actually flying to the ground. Oh, and he knows that he has enough DR that the fall cannot hurt him. THAT is when a monster is too smart.
bitznarf 03-12-07, 08:58 PM	THAT is when a monster is too smart. Would you say that a PC is being too smart had they done that? And on a side note, what was the creatures int/wis scores?
smerwin29 03-12-07, 09:34 PM	Would you say that a PC is being too smart had they done that? Absolutely. I would allow the character to do that, especially if the table was in jeopardy, but I would also let the player know what I thought about it. The problem is that the DM or player is using a knowledge of game mechanics to do something that in reality is completely opposite logically. The fact is that falling means you are out of control, take damage, and end up prone. Flying down gets you there at practically the same speed, but you end up in control and on your feet. It makes no sense whatsoever to let yourself fall when you could fly, except in the rules. And on a side note, what was the creatures int/wis scores? Not sure, but it is not relevant. The creature's thought process would have to include knowledge of what is a move action and what is no action for its intelligence or wisdom to come into play.
King Kashue 03-12-07, 10:47 PM	Absolutely. I would allow the character to do that, especially if the table was in jeopardy, but I would also let the player know what I thought about it. The problem is that the DM or player is using a knowledge of game mechanics to do something that in reality is completely opposite logically. The fact is that falling means you are out of control, take damage, and end up prone. Flying down gets you there at practically the same speed, but you end up in control and on your feet. It makes no sense whatsoever to let yourself fall when you could fly, except in the rules. That's also a questionable rules decision... "Use the movement rules to apply to any sort of movement, not just when traveling across a flat surface" (DMG p.20) If it has the ability to move 3 dimensionally, claiming a difference between flying and falling is suspect (since you do mention it has hover)... As you say, I would let a player do that if a table was in jeopardy, but a DM busting that out is nonsense. If the table was having trouble in general, that's the sort of piling-on that would make me never play at the judge's table again, and if it was a con, I would report the judge to the Senior DM.
Southernskies 03-13-07, 04:40 AM	And the fact that DR doesn't apply to falling damage... (it only works against weapon damage).
Madfox11 03-13-07, 04:57 AM	Well, there is one other big difference: Concentration checks. When falling you should at least ask for Concentration checks to activate anything. You also fall much faster (which is in the DMG btw) and unless you are very high in the air you are likely to hit the ground before you can grab the wand and activate it. If I remember correctly a falling character also needs a Concentration (or was it another check?) to regain control over its flight, so that BBEG is taking a risk. In any event, in this particular case another problem arises: while initiative makes it appear things go in short bursts of action, all things actually happen more or less at the same time. The falling BBEG might appear silly, but no more than that BBEG who has no chance to grab the wand before it falls out of its reach. I have no problems with NPCs using knowledge on the difference between move actions and the like. PCs do it all the time. I do have a problem with meta-gaming on the 1d6 damage per 10 feet. If you fall from 40 feet high in real life you are in big trouble, and that is what I tend to assume in game as well (which is also why I never DD above the flying PCs in a particular fight even though game mechanically it would have made perfect sense...)
Timlagor 03-13-07, 06:51 AM	I'd have been tempted to make him wait until his next initiative count to actually fall... He did end his turn prone on the ground so it can't have been all bad..?
smerwin29 03-13-07, 09:00 AM	Well, there is one other big difference: Concentration checks. When falling you should at least ask for Concentration checks to activate anything. No activation was done while he was falling. He was on the ground, already having fallen. Maybe I wasn't clear. He was disarmed, so the wand was already on the ground. He fell as a free action (going prone is a free action), grabbed the wand while prone as a move action, then activated as a standard action. You also fall much faster (which is in the DMG btw) I'd be interested in seeing that. I know about the stuff on page 303 of the DMG, but I can't remember seeing anything about falling speed. Anyone, that is irrelevant, because he could have gotten to the ground easily in one move action either flying or falling. and unless you are very high in the air you are likely to hit the ground before you can grab the wand and activate it. He didn't do that, as I said above. That's my entire point. The wand was already on the ground. If I remember correctly a falling character also needs a Concentration (or was it another check?) to regain control over its flight, so that BBEG is taking a risk. Wow, I should ask for a refund on my English degrees. What you are saying is my entire point. He didn't even try to fly. He just let himself fall to the ground and (potentially) take damage so he would still have a move action left to pick up the wand, rather than fly down and lose the move action. In any event, in this particular case another problem arises: while initiative makes it appear things go in short bursts of action, all things actually happen more or less at the same time. The falling BBEG might appear silly, but no more than that BBEG who has no chance to grab the wand before it falls out of its reach. I'm confused here. He was disarmed. Where does it say in the rules that someone who gets disarmed gets a chance to "catch" the object that was disarmed? Doesn't that make the Ranged Disarm feat pretty weak if the opponent can just catch the weapon/object? I have no problems with NPCs using knowledge on the difference between move actions and the like. I usually don't, unless taking the free action is completely opposite logically and instinctually when any creature with any sense of logic or self-preservation would take the move action.[/QUOTE] Just as an aside that actually tries to get back on topic, I have no problem with the judge who ran this. He is a very good judge with decent rules knowledge. I just have a problem with this case specifically, where the best thing tactically takes a knowledge of the rules that goes against logic and instinct.
Gallaway 03-13-07, 07:03 PM	When the monster uses complex tactics that exploit its abilities in a way that reveal inside knowledge of the parties strengths and weaknesses that could have only been obtained if the particular monster had both seen the party fight many many times and also had a day or so to come up with a game plan to defeat them .. yet this monster has never seen or heard of the party in question before.
Samwise 03-14-07, 01:07 AM	When the monster uses complex tactics that exploit its abilities in a way that reveal inside knowledge of the parties strengths and weaknesses that could have only been obtained if the particular monster had both seen the party fight many many times and also had a day or so to come up with a game plan to defeat them .. yet this monster has never seen or heard of the party in question before. And what if the monster does? It is possible for a monster to have inside information every now and then, or be able to make reasonable guesses about particular party members based on immediate observations and actions during combat.
smerwin29 03-14-07, 10:03 AM	This is usually how I do it: if the PCs are having a reasonable time with the adventure (challenged but not overwhelmed), I run the bad guys as smart as they should be. If the PCs are in way over their heads, I tone down the tactics a bit. If the PCs are cakewalking the adventure, I ramp up the tactics a bit to at least give them a little bit of a challenge, without actually changing the adventure. The best judges I have had are the ones who make me feel that my PC was in peril, even when it was not.
Rerednaw 03-14-07, 10:47 AM	No activation was done while he was falling. He was on the ground, already having fallen. Maybe I wasn't clear. He was disarmed, so the wand was already on the ground. He fell as a free action (going prone is a free action), grabbed the wand while prone as a move action, then activated as a standard action. ... Uh...so many ways that can go wrong. I'm hoping the judge considered all the bad stuff. How far did the wand fall? I would have asked the judge to roll damage on a wood 1/2" thick (hardness 5, hp 5) object that fell that distance. Did the judge use scattering rules for the item after it was disarmed? In any case, didn't anyone on the player side have a readied action? To pick up the wand after the disarm? How did he turn off his flight? What kind of flying? Allowing a 'turning off' of flight as a part of a drop prone action, that's going to get table variation.
smerwin29 03-14-07, 11:08 AM	Uh...so many ways that can go wrong. I'm hoping the judge considered all the bad stuff. How far did the wand fall? I would have asked the judge to roll damage on a wood 1/2" thick (hardness 5, hp 5) object that fell that distance. Did the judge use scattering rules for the item after it was disarmed? I really didn't have an issue with the judge's rules' decisions. The point was the monster knew the difference between a move action and a no action. In any case, didn't anyone on the player side have a readied action? To pick up the wand after the disarm? The player who had the disarm feat didn't think of it until her turn, the bad guy was going next, and he would have blasted one of the PCs dead. No chance to ready.
Rerednaw 03-14-07, 11:37 AM	I really didn't have an issue with the judge's rules' decisions. The point was the monster knew the difference between a move action and a no action. The player who had the disarm feat didn't think of it until her turn, the bad guy was going next, and he would have blasted one of the PCs dead. No chance to ready. I actually didn't have an issue with the mechanics. If you know you only have a few seconds to act and that one alternative saves ('dropping' instead of 'moving') just enough time to get a desired result then sure. I've seen dropping prone and firing save character's posteriors on occasion. Monster? Was this a stupid creature? I'm assuming that it was a spellcaster with a reasonable intellect because of the aforementioned wand use.
solbergb 03-14-07, 12:42 PM	I run monsters as smart as their statblocks and plot says they are. To me that's the only way to maintain immersion - aside from CR expectations. An animal fight shouldn't feel the same as a fight with Erynes. As an example, in a recent special mission I wrote, which I can spoil because it can only be run once an Efreet had Stoneholder barbarian minions. It used their magic and its magic to set up a really good ambush, involving sneaking up to a campsite silently and invisibly and targeting the obviously awake people (and using their ranger to track the party and get its location so they could buff out of earshot). The stoneholders weren't smart, but the Efreet was no dummy, so he gave them a really good plan. Unfortunately for him, the PC's knew the ambush was coming and turned the tables by blinding many of the attackers (blind in a silence field sucks). The stoneholders didn't handle that well...they had a good plan but were raging and not terribly bright. Had they not been forewarned, they might have been able to muscle out of the situation, but would have been in significant danger of TPK even though the bad guys were a couple levels lower. That's the weakness of smart boss/dumb minions - when the plan goes off the rails, they don't improvise well. The Efreet did a bit better, and if the party hadn't known the efreet was coming too, he would have really mauled them but he also got into trouble because his assumptions were wrong and it took a round or two of doing the wrong thing to prove it. He still almost got away, because he reacted much faster to the evidence that this was a trap.
Reylance 03-14-07, 04:43 PM	As a counter for the 6 Int tactical genius argument.... In the United States, we hear about the occasional boy (it's always boys) who struggles to achieve minimum grades and SAT scores to qualify for college, standards he must meet for the NCAA to play men's basketball or football. Yet these student-athletes do (presumably) learn the playbook for their new team. These would be roughly the equivalent of low-Int PCs learning combat tactics.
King Kashue 03-14-07, 04:57 PM	Yet these student-athletes do (presumably) learn the playbook for their new team. These would be roughly the equivalent of low-Int PCs learning combat tactics. It's the difference between wrote learning and creative innovation...Who are the guys with the most complicated jobs? Generally the smartest guys (according to the wonderlick test). Though that is what I said. My int 6 guy? Entirely effective in combat (considering he's my one min/maxed character, he's often shockingly effective), but he's not complex and he's not innovative. My int 14 fighter? Complex, varied, always making what appears to be the optimal choice, etc... And just as a football > basketball note, basketball plays are so simple compared to football the two aren't even close to being the same :D
Zanzibax 03-15-07, 11:14 AM	It's really hard to judge mental stats, but with enough 6 int Half-Orc PCs running around that are tactical geniuses, I don't dumb down any encounters based on monster Intelligence. Unless, of course, it's an animal or something without an INT score. I dunno...it's hard to see mental stats properly adjudicated by most GM's. The monsters simply fail to apply their intelligence once the GM's intelligence level is met. I don't see dumbing down encounters a particular problem. :hides:
Zanzibax 03-15-07, 11:16 AM	And just as a football > basketball note, basketball plays are so simple compared to football the two aren't even close to being the same :D Yes...and this is why there are engineers in the NFL. Are there any in basketball?
Rerednaw 03-15-07, 01:07 PM	It's the difference between wrote learning and creative innovation...Who are the guys with the most complicated jobs? Generally the smartest guys (according to the wonderlick test). Though that is what I said. My int 6 guy? Entirely effective in combat (considering he's my one min/maxed character, he's often shockingly effective), but he's not complex and he's not innovative. My int 14 fighter? Complex, varied, always making what appears to be the optimal choice, etc... And just as a football > basketball note, basketball plays are so simple compared to football the two aren't even close to being the same :D So if the Tendriculous has 1 rank in Profession: Sports Star I can run him the way I run an Archmagus? :D Reporter: "Mr. Tendricky! Mr. Tendricky! That play was amazing! How did you do it?" Tendriculous: "After my diviner cohort ascertained all the opposings teams strengths and weaknesses, I allocated my resources and directed my minions for maximum shock effect during the surprise round..." Reports: "Care to comment on the allegations that you have been illegally using Potions of Rage, Bulls Strength and Cat's Grace or other performance-enhancing drugs before the Big Boss Fight--" Tendriculous: *GRAB* *CHOMP* *GULP* *BURP*
Zanzibax 03-15-07, 02:58 PM	Looks good to me, Tendriculous
GrahamWills 03-16-07, 02:50 PM	I dunno...it's hard to see mental stats properly adjudicated by most GM's. The monsters simply fail to apply their intelligence once the GM's intelligence level is met. I don't see dumbing down encounters a particular problem. :hides: My rule of thumb is: Compare the monster's intelligence to my personal intelligence. If it is more or less the same, don't worry about intelligence. If it is lower than mine, anytime I think of anything that seems clever, make a d20 roll and if it is not below the monster's INT score, it does something simpler. For monsters clever than I, I slow the combat down to give myself extra time to think tactics, and if the PCs come up with something to attack the monster that I didn't think of, but the monster might, then give the moNSter an int check to see if it could have guessed
trollbill 03-16-07, 03:06 PM	My rule of thumb is: Compare the monster's intelligence to my personal intelligence. If it is more or less the same, don't worry about intelligence. If it is lower than mine, anytime I think of anything that seems clever, make a d20 roll and if it is not below the monster's INT score, it does something simpler. For monsters clever than I, I slow the combat down to give myself extra time to think tactics, and if the PCs come up with something to attack the monster that I didn't think of, but the monster might, then give the moNSter an int check to see if it could have guessed I think it is acceptable to give creatures I consider more intelligent than myself some knowledge I can't explain them having, i.e. I don't see how they'd know it, but their intelligence is such they could possibly deduce it even if I can't see how. That's the nature of greater intelligence. Of course, one still needs to set limits on this based on how much more intelligent they are. So if the Tendriculous has 1 rank in Profession: Sports Star I can run him the way I run an Archmagus? :D Why not just give them ranks in Knowledge (metagaming). I believe it is a class skill for monsters. :D
RanielK 03-17-07, 03:44 AM	But no. Somehow the BBEG knows the difference between move actions and no action, so he decides to plummet to the ground as a free action so he can use a move action to retrieve the wand and a standard action to use it again--rather than waste the move action actually flying to the ground. Oh, and he knows that he has enough DR that the fall cannot hurt him. THAT is when a monster is too smart. Actually, Tom Clancy came up with that trick back in 1993 (actually around 1992 if you consider publish date vs. writting time). The whole scenario of "how do we get a helicopter full of Special Forces on the ground fast enough to deploy and take over the NVA POW camp without giving them time to react?" Answer: "Crash the helicopter." IIRC, the SF guys PRACTICED that maneuver before using it in combat. Course, its a book, but I've met a few special ops guys who'd probably have come up with that idea.
RanielK 03-17-07, 03:50 AM	Okay, on doing a little more digging. It seems Clancy stole that from the real operation (only changing the outcome, ie. book=free prisoners, reality=prisoners were moved a few months before so failure). Operation Ivory Coast, the plan to rescure ~65 US POWs at Son Tay prison camp opened with the intentional crash landing of a helicopter full of special ops guys in the middle of the camp. One guy broke his ankle in that (one of two US casualties of the op). The operation took place in 1970, so the tactic has been around since before TSR started D&D!
smerwin29 03-17-07, 09:17 AM	Actually, Tom Clancy came up with that trick back in 1993 (actually around 1992 if you consider publish date vs. writting time). The whole scenario of "how do we get a helicopter full of Special Forces on the ground fast enough to deploy and take over the NVA POW camp without giving them time to react?" Answer: "Crash the helicopter." IIRC, the SF guys PRACTICED that maneuver before using it in combat. Course, its a book, but I've met a few special ops guys who'd probably have come up with that idea. Yes, that is precisely the same situation. Here's the difference, aside from the fact that it is totally different. The above tactic was done because it would take too long to land the copter. In the game, the creature's fly speed was a such that it could have flown down just as fast as it fell. People's need to contradict seems to be obscuring my point. The ONLY reason the creature did a thing that completely went against logic and instinct was that it knew the out-of-game difference between a move action and no action. That is too smart. Falling didn't get the creature there any faster than flying, and outside of metagaming, left the creature in a worse situation than it needed to be in (damaged and prone).
RanielK 03-17-07, 12:37 PM	Yes, that is precisely the same situation. Here's the difference, aside from the fact that it is totally different. The above tactic was done because it would take too long to land the copter. In the game, the creature's fly speed was a such that it could have flown down just as fast as it fell. People's need to contradict seems to be obscuring my point. The ONLY reason the creature did a thing that completely went against logic and instinct was that it knew the out-of-game difference between a move action and no action. That is too smart. Falling didn't get the creature there any faster than flying, and outside of metagaming, left the creature in a worse situation than it needed to be in (damaged and prone). And yet creatures with human or higher intelligence constantly do things that go against logic and instinct to gain an advantage. Especially if that advantage is in a life or death situation, like, say combat. Sure it was messed up and from the sound of it you were on the receiving end of messed up. If it was done by a creature smart enough to use a wand, I'm willing to bet the creature was smart enough to weigh the odds and figure throwing some more smack down was a good idea. I as a judge would only pull out something that messed up if it was written into the tactics, which is of course unlikely. As a character? Who knows? I've done crazier things.
smerwin29 03-17-07, 03:07 PM	And yet creatures with human or higher intelligence constantly do things that go against logic and instinct to gain an advantage. Only if they are aware that it is an advantage.
Timlagor 03-17-07, 10:38 PM	They live within the D&D world. Some things work differently there. I see no particular reason why they shouldn't be mostly aware of the rules in which they operate (even if it's primarily instinctive). You could say that the monster was deliberately concentraating on the wand knowing that he had only enough time to concentrate on grabbing it or controlling his descent before the enemy struck again.
cetiken 03-18-07, 10:43 PM	I like my monster smart, my fights hard, and my rewards well earned. What I don't like is DMs going out of their way to intentionally destroy PC equipment. While I haven't seen any of that in actual play its concerning that I've heard it happens. Kill me, hunt me, torture my friends, burn down my hometown, but please don't break my bow.
Kilbia 03-19-07, 12:36 PM	When the monster uses complex tactics that exploit its abilities in a way that reveal inside knowledge of the parties strengths and weaknesses that could have only been obtained if the particular monster had both seen the party fight many many times and also had a day or so to come up with a game plan to defeat them .. yet this monster has never seen or heard of the party in question before. It is entirely possible to have seen a party fight many, many times - just not necessarily together. Scrying is a beautiful thing, and there are some people out there who live for that kind of thing. Most of them in my home region (BK). :mad:
solbergb 03-19-07, 03:54 PM	Scrying is the least of it. In the BK, when you get a wanted score, it's because investigators went over the ground of what the PC's did and assembled a "MO" of how you behave. I always got the impression they recognized a given PC by HOW he did things rather than by raw scrying or what he looked like. That sort of thing is harder to disguise, although they can put a name and normal appearance on a MO using more normal divination type spells.
GeorgeFHarris 03-19-07, 05:25 PM	Scrying is the least of it. In the BK, when you get a wanted score, it's because investigators went over the ground of what the PC's did and assembled a "MO" of how you behave. I always got the impression they recognized a given PC by HOW he did things rather than by raw scrying or what he looked like. That sort of thing is harder to disguise, although they can put a name and normal appearance on a MO using more normal divination type spells. Hey, a new idea for a DnD TV show. Adventurer Minds - A show where the BBEG's hire diviners and investigators to profile adventurers, before those adventurers come to kill the BBEG. ;) GH
LachlarlanIII 03-19-07, 05:29 PM	Hey, a new idea for a DnD TV show. Adventurer Minds - A show where the BBEG's hire diviners and investigators to profile adventurers, before those adventurers come to kill the BBEG. ;) GH Hey! It's possible. Especially if those "investigators" encounter the PCs while the BBEG is scrying upon said "investigators".
Cardinal Teplin 03-21-07, 10:27 AM	Scrying is the least of it. In the BK, when you get a wanted score, it's because investigators went over the ground of what the PC's did and assembled a "MO" of how you behave. I always got the impression they recognized a given PC by HOW he did things rather than by raw scrying or what he looked like. That sort of thing is harder to disguise, although they can put a name and normal appearance on a MO using more normal divination type spells. It's still quite a thing to assume that has been done off camera. Some characters spend quite a bit of time, trouble and effort to not get routinely observed. Assuming that an NPC not only can, but already has done, it a bit of a liberty. Look at it the other way - how would you react to a PC who claims to simply 'know' all the powerful who enter or leave a region because he spends a lot of time scrying and keeping tabs on things? We have some PCs who are professional spies, espionage agents or have a full-time secret identity. They probably wouldn't be happy about people simply 'knowing' all about them. On a similar basis, a group might well go to some lengths to become known. My usual group has a well established base, banner, contacts with the regional nobility, motto, MO, ethos and code of conduct, and so on. All backed up by campaign documentation. Being able to see that lot coming is entirely plausible. But I don't see that people looking for you should mean that NPC have any solid information about you, any more than the fact that they are looking for you means you have solid information about the. Contact before the adventure starts works both ways after all.
solbergb 03-21-07, 03:14 PM	How much info they have is based on your Wanted Church of Iuz score. If you've done stuff to make them mad, they look a lot harder for you. If you have done favors for the government, your patrons cover up for you and mess up the investigations, lowering the WCI score. It's all handled pretty fairly and it takes a fair number of deeds to really get noticed beyond what even an untrained disguise check can cover easily. In my character's case though, any attempt to disguise her true identity with an alias for all the deeds she did was kind of blown when she leant her hat of disguise to a prisoner who turned out to be an Iuzian double agent that was ALSO being scried upon when I did it. Oops :) Until then it was plausible that the "identity" they pinned the deeds on was her alias, not her (she was spending most of her time in disguise as her ex-husband...)