Monster Weakness!?

[Gamer Girl]

So running a game(3X) at the Game Stop, with a bunch of people I've never met before, and the monster weakness problem comes up. It's happened before, but this is a good example.

--------
*DM(Me)-"As you move through the jungle, you come to a clearing where eight large humanoid---"

*Player Fred(stands up rolls d20)"I roll a knowledge check! What are the humanoids?"

*DM(checks roll results)-"You know that they are of a race known in theas parts as the Loxo. A race of large humanoid---"

*Player Fred-"Skip the fluff, what is their Weakness?"

*DM(Checks)-"They do not have any specific weakness."

*Player Fred, and two others all gasp-"What???"

*DM(nods yes)

*Player Fred-"That is not right! That is not fair! You are cheating! Every monster has a weakness! I made my knowledge roll, you have to tell me!"

(Game stops and breaks up)

------------------


1.So where does this idea come from? Sure a handful of monsters have a slight weakness(fire hurts cold creatures a bit more), but D&D does not have 'weaknesses' all that much.

2.Is this from some other role-playing game?

3.Or do some games homebrew a weakness for each monster?

4.Has anyone else encountered this?

5.How do you handle it?


To be clear, Fred and the others were not looking for a vulnerability or what the creature was not immune to. They specifically wanted a weakness, that is something they could use or do that would kill the monster in one attack. They wanted a 'soft spot' that would instant kill or a common item that would kill, or at least scare into helplessness the monsters.

Fred had no concept of the challenge for experience. And thought the 'challenge' of making the knowledge check was enough that he should automatically be able to kill all monsters.

[WarKitty]

This is common in a lot of the online RPG's I've played. Not sure about video games. I know there's some games where the entire challenge is finding the monster's one weakness and exploiting it. Sounds like Fred is coming from this mentality.

If it comes up again, I might just say "most written D&D monsters don't have a specific weakness."

[Keld Denar]

Fred is dumb. Knowledge checks do get you traits of various monsters. You can get things like what type of weapons overcome their DR, what elements they are resistant/vulnerable to, special attacks like gaze attacks or breath weapons they might possess, etc.

I have no idea where he's got the idea of vulnerabilities from.

How old was Fred? Sounds like kinda an immature thing to do. He didn't react well, and couldn't be reasoned with. Sounds like the kind of person you don't really want to play with anyway...

EDIT: Hmmm, I do remember Rakashasa in 2e and older could be killed immediately if you cast Bless on a crossbow bolt and hit them with it. It had to be a crossbow, and it had to be Bless. Otherwise, you had to kill it the normal way, which was a pretty daunting task back then.

[tyckspoon]

'Fred' is a doink and perhaps has spent too much time playing videogames with 'Strike Weak Point for Massive Damage!' mechanics. Generally monster 'weaknesses' will tell you things like "This creature is a little awkward and probably won't be able to get out of the way of a Fireball (ie, poor Reflex)" Those tend to be relatively obvious, however, for people who have some game experience, so after a while players won't bother unless they actually do need to find out about a more obscure and specific weakness, like the correct way to overcome an unusual DR or Regeneration type.

[Cespenar]

JRPGs in general use the specific elemental weakness and resistances thing quite often, but apart from that, I don't know. As you have said it, D&D really doesn't use that mechanic very much.

[Diarmuid]

Or you get very literal,

"The monsters weakness is that it's blood and organs that maintain it's life are housed within a semi-thin membrane. If that membrane were to be damaged enough, the blood and organs would escape, thus causing the creature to no longer be alive"

[Ruinix]

i think this come from some olders editions of D&D and off course from severals novels and games, like Dracula and alike, with a specific "weapon" in a specific soft spot and all the fluff, so is generally a concept attached to the fantasy, but 3.X is a tactical game despite of the pun pun builds and broken loops, it 's still a tactical game and shouldn't be any 1 shot anything on a soft spot or not.

[Gensh]

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z42/Fearbane/lolboss.jpg

More seriously and involving less jpging, he's definitely trying to "win" D&D. You said you were having this at a Game Stop - do you mean the video game chain. If so, I wouldn't be surprised if the players thought D&D followed the standard trope of "hit this flashing thing and it dies."

[Apophis]

"The monsters weakness is that it's blood and organs that maintain it's life are housed within a semi-thin membrane. If that membrane were to be damaged enough, the blood and organs would escape, thus causing the creature to no longer be alive"

This. :smallbiggrin:

However,
Generally monster 'weaknesses' will tell you things like "This creature is a little awkward and probably won't be able to get out of the way of a Fireball (ie, poor Reflex)" Those tend to be relatively obvious
is a very good suggestion, and also less likely to get your players mad at you.

[Saint GoH]

This is common in a lot of the online RPG's I've played. Not sure about video games. I know there's some games where the entire challenge is finding the monster's one weakness and exploiting it. Sounds like Fred is coming from this mentality.

If it comes up again, I might just say "most written D&D monsters don't have a specific weakness."

True. Most online rpg's or video games have monsters who each have specific weaknesses. Fast style against these creatures, strong style against these, silver weapons here, wood weapons here. Lots of variables.

Truth be told using the term "weakness" seems a little vague, maybe he was asking into the particulars of damage reduction, spell resistance, immunities that sort of thing. One can assume if a creature has DR 5/Bludgeoning it has a weakness of sorts. Likewise if something has a resistance to fire and an immunity to acid one can ascertain its "weakness" is not acid or fire.

[Comet]

Wanting monsters to have weakness, that I can see if you're not aware that 3.5 is a bit more tactical and/or slow paced than some other games, which means less instakill exploitations. Plenty of classic games and stories have monsters that have to be fought by being quick, clever and decisive instead of toughing it out for hours through willpower and manly tears.

On the other hand, going through a hissyfit and dragging the game to a halt because the mean DM won't tell you about the bat-monster's weakness to light magic is ridiculous, immature and wargarblargh.

[Debihuman]

Except the loxo don't have a specific weakness apparently. However this might be useful (I'm using the info from Shining South unless there is more current info on them)

1. They are slow for their size. They move at 30 ft but are Large creatures.
2. If the PC knows about Berserk Rage, then you might tell him that the loxo is fatigued afterward.

It's all a matter of deciding what counts as a "weakness." No all monsters have weaknesses that can be exploited. Perhaps you should gently remind your players of that fact. In fact, some monsters are more powerful than the PCs. Running away is an option in D&D and often a good tactic. In fact, some monsters aren't meant to be attacked at all. They are meant to be questioned, used as allies, etc.

Debby

[Baveboi]

For the love of god, they have the SAME weakness as every monster ever had. They are stabby, slicy and samshy. If you do it enough they eventually die.


"The monsters weakness is that it's blood and organs that maintain it's life are housed within a semi-thin membrane. If that membrane were to be damaged enough, the blood and organs would escape, thus causing the creature to no longer be alive"

Ta-dãaaaaa!

[Claudius Maximus]

Sounds like the player is used to playing a game where all monsters have weaknesses. Not necessarily another kind of game, I mean a D&D campaign or something where they do it that way.

If it's his experience that no monsters are without weaknesses, and he really thinks that that is the way the game works, his reaction is a bit more understandable. Though of course he didn't have to have the kind of game-stopping fit the OP implies.

[Illithid Savant]

The brain.

[WarKitty]

Sounds like the player is used to playing a game where all monsters have weaknesses. Not necessarily another kind of game, I mean a D&D campaign or something where they do it that way.

If it's his experience that no monsters are without weaknesses, and he really thinks that that is the way the game works, his reaction is a bit more understandable. Though of course he didn't have to have the kind of game-stopping fit the OP implies.

Hence why I think a response like "D&D monsters as printed don't typically have a specific weakness" might help. In most of the games I've played that use weaknesses like that, fighting a monster without knowing its weakness is tantamount to suicide. So "monster with no weakness=totally overpowered encounter that only an epic character can win."

That said, there's no excuse for throwing a fit.

[Incanur]

Suggest Knowledge Devolution if the player wants immediate mechanical return for such checks.

[Innis Cabal]

I don't know what MMO's people here are playing but very few have every monster with a "weakness"

This just sounds like the guy wanted to win

[WarrenZig]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Death Attack, which is exactly that, spend 3 round studying your victim to find a weak spot and succeed a sneak attack to insta kill the target, and the reason everyone cant do it is because it takes practice, training and knowledge of anatomy, which is why assassins have it!

I'm also pretty sure that a knowledge check only gives a monsters special abilities and vulnerabilities like fire v a cold creature and that it's only a small amount of info on it.

If you actually played this at a GameStop as in the video game store....i could actually see people like fred being there.

[WarKitty]

I don't know what MMO's people here are playing but very few have every monster with a "weakness"

This just sounds like the guy wanted to win

Depends on what genre you play. It doesn't seem to be as prevalent in the multiplayer games as in single-player ones, from what I've found. But I've definitely had stuff where you absolutely have to hit the monster with its weakness or you will die.

[Thurbane]

Suggest Knowledge Devolution if the player wants immediate mechanical return for such checks.
Knowledge Devotion...although the idea of Knowledge Devolution intrigues me! :smalltongue:

But yes, this is a good mechanical way to let a player exploit a monster's "weakness" by making a Knowledge check. Another is with the Archivist class, and its Dark Knowledge class feature.

...if Fred insists on you creating monster weaknesses based on his Knowledge rolls (which is a bad idea), remind him that it's a double edged sword, and start have monsters making Knowledge checks against him and the rest of the party. :smallamused:

[Incanur]

Knowledge Devotion...although the idea of Knowledge Devolution intrigues me! :smalltongue:

Yikes. :smallredface: In my defense, it's a rough point in the semester. I'm experiencing at least a -2 penalty on Int checks and Int-based skills.

[OracleofWuffing]

I don't know what MMO's people here are playing but very few have every monster with a "weakness"
Not so much MMO, but considering GameStop? Pokemon could possibly maybe be a big influence. Remember, they're both Role Playing Games, for certain definitions of certain words.

(By the way, why is everyone else's GameStop so much better than mine? The one here never hosts any game tournaments or promotes presale reservation gifts... We haven't even had any "Nintendo Giveaway" Pokemon stations.)


Or you get very literal,

"The monsters weakness is that it's blood and organs that maintain it's life are housed within a semi-thin membrane. If that membrane were to be damaged enough, the blood and organs would escape, thus causing the creature to no longer be alive"
Or, if you just don't want to DM with that group again, "The monsters are weakened until someone within a 50ft radius makes and succeeds on a knowledge check, at which point they become much stronger."

[AslanCross]

Yeah, this is the bad kind of metagaming. You really should just say that many monsters don't even have a specific weakness. Heck, all of the core PC races have no specific weakness.




EDIT: Hmmm, I do remember Rakashasa in 2e and older could be killed immediately if you cast Bless on a crossbow bolt and hit them with it. It had to be a crossbow, and it had to be Bless. Otherwise, you had to kill it the normal way, which was a pretty daunting task back then.

This might be a throwback to how some of the rakshasas of legend (like Ravana) were slain. Ravana was pretty much invulnerable, but Rama, the hero, killed him with a blessed arrow. The weapon, Brahmastra, was a specific invocation that could be bestowed on any missile weapon (another hero used it on a blade of grass) that gave it the power to reverse creation. That was released in a colossal blast of energy that could be likened to a nuclear detonation. It blighted the land it was used on and caused people to become sterile, IIRC. It was only given to heroes of great virtue and could only be used once in a lifetime.


Or you get very literal,

"The monsters weakness is that it's blood and organs that maintain it's life are housed within a semi-thin membrane. If that membrane were to be damaged enough, the blood and organs would escape, thus causing the creature to no longer be alive"

This is the most awesome thing I've heard all day.

[HunterOfJello]

I can only think of a handful on d&d monsters that even have weaknesses. Most of them have strengths that you have to overcome or go around to take them out efficiently.

I'm sorry that you have to play with people who don't understand the game.

[Incanur]

This might be a throwback to how some of the rakshasas of legend (like Ravana) were slain. Ravana was pretty much invulnerable, but Rama, the hero, killed him with a blessed arrow. The weapon, Brahmastra, was a specific invocation that could be bestowed on any missile weapon (another hero used it on a blade of grass) that gave it the power to reverse creation. That was released in a colossal blast of energy that could be likened to a nuclear detonation. It blighted the land it was used on and caused people to become sterile, IIRC. It was only given to heroes of great virtue and could only be used once in a lifetime.

This might be a bit off topic, but I feel the Ramayana comes the closest of any mythological text I've read to the spirit of epic-level D&D play. In many ways Rama's feats even surpass what godlike characters can manage. When colossal demons hurl mountain-tops at him he shoots them out of the sky with a couple of arrows. On another occasion an arrow of his sent a fiend flying for a thousand miles. He destroyed an army of 242,000 shapeshifting demons over the course of three hours, thus consistently killing 22 demons per second. He fights opponents even the gods fear yet always wins.

[Valameer]

Everything should be weak to fire, so that I know what I can BURN!

[Jan Mattys]

As a DM, I would respond very harshly to a player pointing a finger at me and saying "skip the fluff".

Really.

Also, from that day onwards I would make sure that every NPC the party encounters, especially the evil ones, would succeed their own knowledge check to know the weaknesses of the PCs.

Just sayin'. :smallwink:

[Mystic Muse]

As a DM, I would respond very harshly to a player pointing a finger at me and saying "skip the fluff".

Really.

Also, from that day onwards I would make sure that every NPC the party encounters, especially the evil ones, would succeed their own knowledge check to know the weaknesses of the PCs.

Just sayin'. :smallwink:

I think punishing the other players for the action of one is a little out of line.

Now, if it was only the one player, I could see that being a reasonable option.

[Killer Angel]

The brain.

Judging from your Avatar and User name, isn't this obvious? :smalltongue:

[Arkeht]

I would suggest pointing out to your players that Knowledge skills themselves are not inherently meant for finding out weaknesses but rather learning more about a situation. Remind them that knowledge in general is power, and that simply knowing more about a monster or situation can help you overcome it.
For example Gnolls have no inherent weaknesses, but the fact that they prefer swarm tactics, and prefer to fight when they out number their enemy can be helpful information. Furthermore the knowledge that they "show little discipline when fighting unless they have a strong leader" could be key to their success.

[Jan Mattys]

I think punishing the other players for the action of one is a little out of line.

Not really, at least in my opinion.

You see, I believe in the group self-regulating itself. The sins of one fall on all, just as the successes of one often benefit all.

I don't think the DM is in charge of everything just because he is the ultimate judge and the ultimate power. Keeping things in caracter and helping me and everybody else in maintaining the right atmosphere for the game is something the players should be interested in as much as I am.

So if a single player breaks the enchantment, I expect the others to tell him something before I have to.

If they fail to do so, I think I am entitled to show them what happens.

It's not being mean to my group. It's providing evidence that it's in everybody's interest to keep the game on the right track.

[FelixG]

Thus the term "Rocks fall, EVERYONE dies"

not "Rocks fall, jerk dies" :smallbiggrin:

On the matter, yah a bit too many JRPGs for this kid, i do like the idea of every enemy being able to make a knowledge check then beat him (specifically) down where he is weak.

Granted 90% of the GMs i have played with have meta-gamed in this way to some level, IE never seeing a monster with X elemental damage again after getting immunity to X.

Annoys the heck outa me :smallmad:

[Mystic Muse]

So if a single player breaks the enchantment, I expect the others to tell him something before I have to.

If they fail to do so, I think I am entitled to show them what happens.


So, you only do it if none of them warn him? I still think it is the dungeon master's job to keep control of his game, but that's slightly more reasonable.

[Thurbane]

This might be a throwback to how some of the rakshasas of legend (like Ravana) were slain. Ravana was pretty much invulnerable, but Rama, the hero, killed him with a blessed arrow.
Interesting...I had previously read that the blessed crossbow bolt of 1E/2E was lifted from an episode of Kochak: The Night Stalker by the designer. But that in turn may have come from this legend...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Everything does indeed have a weakness. However, targeting that weakness doesn't mean instant victory. EG: many, if not most, of the larger creatures have a weakness in that they have low ac. This doesn't mean they're squishy, just easy to hit. Animals and some magical beasts are just plain dumb. This is also an exploitable weakness. It's not an instant win button. There are almost no creatures that you can squish easily by targeting their "weakness." Loxo? hm. Unusually low Fort save for a creature of their description. Lower than average ac during and after berserking. Either of these can be called a weakness.

data on the loxo taken from MM2