"...So can we take it?" Underestimating the Enemy

[ACSherman]

I know that CR for enemies is a fairly abstract way of measuring the power for an encounter, but is there a way that the PC's can look at an enemy and judge whether or not they're in the ballpark to fight it? Some things are obvious--a group of first levels shouldn't be facing an Elder Dragon or a Beholder--but when it comes to things like sizing up a few lycanthropes, a small patrol of hobgoblins, or a giant blocking the path that sense can get a bit tricky.

I typically allow my players to make an appraise check to look at what the enemy is equipped with and how it compares to the equipment they currently possess as well as a Wisdom check to ask themselves "is this wise?"

Is there something I'm overlooking? Or is what i'm doing enough?

[TuggyNE]

I seem to recall an expanded use for I think it was Sense Motive in one of the books, to estimate the CR of a given enemy. (Appraise is only to determine cost/value; you wouldn't use it on people unless you were going to enslave or buy them.)

[Hyde]

The appropriate knowledge to identify a creature could be of some use, a la "These werewolves have been known to slaughter entire platoons of men. Unless that's also something you can do, you might want to back off."

Humanoids would be similarly identified by their gear. A guy with a vorpal sword is a guy you don't want to tangle with.

Basically, if they're in a position to evaluate their enemy at all, there are a few ways to do it.

[Waspinator]

Complete Adventurer lets you use Sense Motive to determine relative CR.

[Killer Angel]

Complete Adventurer lets you use Sense Motive to determine relative CR.

What if the enemy is aware of you, and bluffs an higher CR? :smallcool:

[nedz]

What if the enemy is aware of you, and bluffs an higher CR? :smallcool:

Nice idea, but it's actually far more dangerous if they bluff a lower CR. :smallamused:

[Killer Angel]

Nice idea, but it's actually far more dangerous if they bluff a lower CR. :smallamused:

It really depends on the effect you wanna obtain... :smallwink:

[laeZ1]

I know that CR for enemies is a fairly abstract way of measuring the power for an encounter, but is there a way that the PC's can look at an enemy and judge whether or not they're in the ballpark to fight it? Some things are obvious--a group of first levels shouldn't be facing an Elder Dragon or a Beholder--but when it comes to things like sizing up a few lycanthropes, a small patrol of hobgoblins, or a giant blocking the path that sense can get a bit tricky.
I prefer a sense of mortality in my D&D games. It promotes creativity and planning ahead on the players' parts. I'll never make an unavoidable combat with something much stronger than the players, but I will punish not thinking things through against opponents smarter or more organized than they are.
I typically allow my players to make an appraise check to look at what the enemy is equipped with and how it compares to the equipment they currently possess as well as a Wisdom check to ask themselves "is this wise?"
I would allow my players to make different checks to determine relative strengths of their opponent, but if it was really important, I would set the mood differently. a sense of dread looms over the area as you gaze upon the silloette would give most players a cause to pause. If I wanted to DM-hint that they needn't worry about the hobgoblin patrol, I wouldn't describe the bloodcovered spears and the warpaint they wear. I'd either set the mood by describing the child's singsong they march to, have one of them sneeze. He obviously has a cold, or a touch of flu.


Is there something I'm overlooking? Or is what i'm doing enough? Only you can answer that question. Are your players picking a fight with things they shouldn't?

[Beheld]

Tell the player's the knowledge DC to know anything about the creature. It is DC 10+HD, so that at least tells them HD.

Frankly, Knowledge checks should be based on CR anyway, so just tell them knowledge is based on CR not HD, and then tell them the DC and they know the CR.

[The Trickster]

My DM once home brewed a "scan" spell that basically did this. It wouldn't give specifics, but after casting the spell, the caster would see the enemy as a certain color for a few moments. It was something like;

Blue: It's a bunny rabbit.
Green: Not too bad.
Yellow: You'll break a sweat.
Orange: Let's think this encounter through.
Red: Tarrasque. Run.

Something like that.

[Shining Wrath]

The DM ought to supply sufficient clues in the description as to whether or not you are facing dangerous foes. Fluff like "The hilts of their weapons are worn to a bright sheen" and so on. It's part of a DM's job. It's part of a player's job to listen to the clues and ask questions. "Is there anything special about her sword"? "Why, yes, it seems to glow slightly and there are runes graven in the blade along the entire length".

Just last night fought some skeletons and we knew they were tougher than standard because they had runes engraved into the bones. And because there were only two of them to guard two high-level necromancers.

Then Lady Vol put in an appearance. And the guy who is new to our table asked "Whozzat?" The rest of us: "Be polite. Be VERY polite".

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Nice idea, but it's actually far more dangerous if they bluff a lower CR. :smallamused:

I'm just a wiz, uh, wizened old man, liable at any moment to break the action eco, er, my hip. Break my hip.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

"Oh, surely you wouldn't part an old man from his walking stick?"

Seriously, though... the CR system is so borked up you could end up dealing with something massively under-CR'd that will still roflstomp the party (That Damn Crab anyone?).

Ironically enough, CR would make a very poor metric for determining if you can beat the encounter. It's more about what capabilities your opponents have versus what capabilities you have.

For example, if one side has flight and the other doesn't? Guess who has a massive advantage, regardless of what CR says.

Then, when you get to a certain level of optimization, CR's just go flying out the window. I've actually had a GM TPK a party with a Takahashi no Onisan build, just to prove to them that the tier system is 'more of a guideline, really'. Let's not get into some of the tricks you can play with Planar Binding, Lesser.

[Hyde]

I'm sorry, a what build?

[Matticussama]

There are 3 general guidelines that I, as a DM and a PC, use to get a general estimate.

1) Skills:
- As has been mentioned, Sense Motive can generally be used to ascertain CR. However, it has its weaknesses. I generally use this against anything with class levels.
- Knowledge skills are useful for pure monsters, but not relevant for class skills.

2) Appraise: Oh, that gear all seems to be of exceptional quality.. and I do believe that is a wand.. and a staff.. and a magic ring.. and a magic cloak.. etc.

3) Detect Magic/Arcane Sight: "Why does that feeble old man's staff emanate a strong magical aura... methinks there is more here than meets the eye..." If as a 8th level party you come across someone with magic items with 7th level spells or equivalent power, be wary.

[Acanous]

I'm sorry, a what build?

^This

I've never heard of such a build before, and if you say it's a CW Samurai, I roll to disbelieve.

[TuggyNE]

I'm sorry, a what build?

As his sig says, "Real optimizers use Samurai!"

Takahashi is famous for taking a terrible class (CW Samurai) and making it truly painful to anything not immune to fear; swift-action AoE cowering, IIRC, with an immensely high save from skill boosting.

Of course, if you are immune to fear, nothing happens and you slaughter him in two rounds with no trouble.

[Waspinator]

Detect Magic does let you get a ballpark reading on the caster level of someone's items, so that could work.

[TuggyNE]

Detect Magic does let you get a ballpark reading on the caster level of someone's items, so that could work.

Item CLs are all over the map, though; if you've got a bit of Sovereign Glue or Universal Solvent in your pack, you have a nice tidy CL 20 Transmutation Aura.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

As his sig says, "Real optimizers use Samurai!"

Takahashi is famous for taking a terrible class (CW Samurai) and making it truly painful to anything not immune to fear; swift-action AoE cowering, IIRC, with an immensely high save from skill boosting.

Of course, if you are immune to fear, nothing happens and you slaughter him in two rounds with no trouble.

Pretty much this.

Fearful Armor (DotUD) + Mass Staredown (CW Samurai 10 class ability) + Imperious Command (DotUD) and some skill optimization tricks, a dip into Exemplar, and everyone within 30' has a DC 53 HD check (NOT a saving throw) or Cower. Every round.

Check the build in the sig, if you are interested.

Basically, he walked up and locked down the whole party. Granted, his damage output is fairly sub-par for a melee build, but any damage per round means he'll eventually kill you, even if it takes forever.

Of course, it had to be immunity to fear, not just mind-affecting. So either you are a Paladin, or your are Mindless.

[SiuiS]

Check the rules compendium.

Sense Motive against a DC, to give you a ballpark range on a 5-point scale. 1 is more than five CR below you, 2 is within 4 CR, 3 is about even, etc.

So you can look at an ogre and a kobold, and tell at level 2 "the kobold is easy pickings though crafty, but the ogre may be trouble", or "the ogre is an issue but that kobold? Definitely above our pay grade (kobo with hefty levels)". But enemies within a certain scale homogenize, so you can't tell the difference easily.

And yes, it allows for bluff to try and throw you off.


Of course, it had to be immunity to fear, not just mind-affecting. So either you are a Paladin, or your are Mindless.

Are not all fear effects mind affecting?

[TuggyNE]

Are not all fear effects mind affecting?

All fear attacks certainly are, but some say that that doesn't include all fear effects.

I say that's nonsense, but there it is. :smalltongue:

[ArcturusV]

It comes down to where you want to draw the line on language.

For example, you could say that Fear is an emotional state, thus is by it's very nature, Mind Affecting, and anything immune to Mind Affecting is also immune to fear.

Though that leaves some odd things and prevents kind of iconic images from happening. For example, Vampires, Undead, so they are immune to Mind Affecting. Which if you take that to mean they're immune to fear couldn't be scared off by things like Garlic, Holy Icons, etc. Even though having them recoil in fear is a standard schtick of the creature. Heck, even Turning and Rebuking is described as instilling fear in Undead, which you couldn't do if you defined it like that.

It also opens the door for sillier RAW things like: Pain is a state of the mind and the nervous system. So things that cause death through Pain, like Massive Damage, "Die" effects like a Monk's quivering palm, torture type spells, etc, are all rendered null and void by immunity to mind affecting.

Eventually that sort of way lies to madness. So you gotta draw the line somewhere. Does "immune to mind affecting" mean things like magical compulsions only? Does it mean anything that would unnaturally alter your mind, including things like drugs and poisons? Does it mean you're immune to basic stimuli from interaction with other beings?

[TuggyNE]

Though that leaves some odd things and prevents kind of iconic images from happening. For example, Vampires, Undead, so they are immune to Mind Affecting. Which if you take that to mean they're immune to fear couldn't be scared off by things like Garlic, Holy Icons, etc. Even though having them recoil in fear is a standard schtick of the creature. Heck, even Turning and Rebuking is described as instilling fear in Undead, which you couldn't do if you defined it like that.

Personally, I don't think undead should either a] be a type (it should be a subtype, usually applied to constructs, but sometimes applied to humanoids, such as with vampires) or b] have blanket immunity to mind-affecting. That solves some other practical problems as well.

</spitballing>

[Hyde]

We're playing with striking the blanket immunity to mind-effecting. It's led to a few weird rule calls- there's a bard spell that causes nausea on a will save, but since that's otherwise a fort effect (that they'd normally be immune to) we ruled they should probably be immune to the spell.

Frankly, they should list what undead are immune to at a basic level, and not just "What fort saves would normally cover".

[Edit, I should note that we're pretty satisfied with it, overall. If it has a mind, it's not immune to mind-effecting].

[TuggyNE]

It's led to a few weird rule calls- there's a bard spell that causes nausea on a will save, but since that's otherwise a fort effect (that they'd normally be immune to) we ruled they should probably be immune to the spell.

Frankly, they should list what undead are immune to at a basic level, and not just "What fort saves would normally cover".

Yeah, "Immune to non-object-affecting Fort saves" is another really poorly-thought-through blanket immunity that doesn't actually make sense in practice without a great deal of care taken for every single Fort save spell, power, or other effect. Care which was not, I should add, actually taken in all cases.

[SiuiS]

All fear attacks certainly are, but some say that that doesn't include all fear effects.

I say that's nonsense, but there it is. :smalltongue:

Huh. Yeah, I dunno. I recall all intimidate is a mind effecting affect because it's fear, but... Ah well.


It comes down to where you want to draw the line on language.

For example, you could say that Fear is an emotional state, thus is by it's very nature, Mind Affecting, and anything immune to Mind Affecting is also immune to fear.

Though that leaves some odd things and prevents kind of iconic images from happening. For example, Vampires, Undead, so they are immune to Mind Affecting. Which if you take that to mean they're immune to fear couldn't be scared off by things like Garlic, Holy Icons, etc. Even though having them recoil in fear is a standard schtick of the creature. Heck, even Turning and Rebuking is described as instilling fear in Undead, which you couldn't do if you defined it like that.

Eh. Not really? Chill touch already instills a non-fear fear-like state in undead, and a specific exception based on a folkloric representation is surely in line with a first level spell?


It also opens the door for sillier RAW things like: Pain is a state of the mind and the nervous system. So things that cause death through Pain, like Massive Damage, "Die" effects like a Monk's quivering palm, torture type spells, etc, are all rendered null and void by immunity to mind affecting.

No, that's just straight prevarication. The Mind Effecting clause isn't a Brain thing, it's a Mind thing in a setting which explicitly separates the mental and the physical, includes a soul and allows the mind (which is immune to being effected) to be separated from the body (which isn't immune). Pain is a recognizable mechanical change in the nerves, which doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the mind since it can be detected and measured in brain dead patients and reflexes only hi the brain stem and return along nervous paths without interacting with anything actually mental. Vermin have brainstems.

Overgeneralizing shouldn't affect the rules. The rules are that [Fear] as a tag is separate from fear as a concept. Nerve impulses (which might no even exist, especially since the monk death touch ability involves Chinese medicine, meridians, and organ structures which aren't even contained in the body as discrete physical constructs) are a degree or two removed from mind the mind, which is a degree or two removed from [Mind Effecting] as a tag and rules set.

It's kinda like saying pleasure is actually pain because they both operate on nerves so a caress should inflict Fireball damage sice it operates through the same mechanism.