PDA

View Full Version : Monsters with self-preservation



Irreverent Fool
2008-02-04, 06:26 AM
In the latest session I DM'd for my gaming group, the PCs managed to bypass a puzzle though creativity and reach an area within the crumbling ruin of a long-dead necromancer's tower now half-submerged in an underground lake beneath the hill atop which it once stood.

Well, I hadn't planned on them getting up there until they'd figured out the riddle of the lower doors and gone to track down the magical key that would allow them to unseal the tower (and gain them a few levels). I had the tower all planned out. I thought about scaling down the encounters on the fly, but figured they'd realize what was up there was a bit too much for them. Besides, I wanted to see if they could handle it.

To make a long story slightly shorter, after managing to destroy two wraiths and severely damage another two, the still-existing wraiths retreated through the walls and -- sensing the airflow from the entry the druid had made with stone shape -- escaped into the dark of night and the open countryside. (The enchanted door had kept what undead remained in the tower from leaving.)

I got some complaints from one of my players who tends to be something of a metagamer about wraiths having any sense of self-preservation (despite the fact that the four wraiths were using such clever tactics of scouting out the PCs positions in a series of narrow halls, retreating, and then attacking into their spaces through the walls (albeit with a 50% miss chance for not being able to see them)). I managed to handwave the issue away by saying they have an intelligence score and free will except in regard to the wraith that spawned them, but it took some arguing.

(I dock players xp for doing stuff like that. Is that wrong?)

The PCs have had enemies escape them numerous times and had to deal with the repercussions of surviving minions reporting the abilities and tactics of the PCs to their superiors. They've commented on the fact that this doesn't happen with other DMs, which I found surprising.

The question:

Do your NPCs/monsters tend to fight to the death? Or do they have enough self-preservation to run the heck away from the whirlwind of death that is the Player-Characters when it's clear that the tide of battle is turning against them?

its_all_ogre
2008-02-04, 06:34 AM
fighting to the death is reserved fr mindless creatures, ones who cannot believe they will lose, or similar.
defence of bases by certain creatures may also fight to death.
i give full xp for those that escape as they have been defeated.

what are you docking xp for here?
i dock xp for ooc knowledge in game like: 'this level of carnivorous creatures with no natural prey is unnatural, therefore somebody must be doing this'

the characters in question believe this is normal as this is the way it has always been as far as they know, hence xp dockage.
i think it is unfair to dock xp for enemies that have escaped.

Rift_Wolf
2008-02-04, 06:39 AM
In general, monsters won't willingly fight to the death if an espace route is open. Obviously mindless/stupid/especially violent ones won't realise the fights going against them till it's too late.
In our game, even random encounters can run away if they're severely injured or their groups been severely depleted. Even trolls aren't so thick they'll stick around after half their hunting parties been set on fire.
Also, this allows the ranger to come into his own by tracking the creatures back to their lair. Okay, with those wraiths that would be a bit difficult (Seeing as they're incorporeal and you were already in their lair).
Meta-gamers want their enemies to fight to the death because that's how every monster fights in computer games (Okay, the grunts in Halo do run away), is my theory.

Rutee
2008-02-04, 06:49 AM
what are you docking xp for here?
i dock xp for ooc knowledge in game like: 'this level of carnivorous creatures with no natural prey is unnatural, therefore somebody must be doing this'
Wait, that's COMPLETELY IC, in theory. If they know the monster's exact diet OOC and can't possibly know it IC, that's one thing, but "I don't see how that thing's going to feed here" when it's a rational observation? Why penalize for that?

Irreverent Fool
2008-02-04, 06:50 AM
fighting to the death is reserved fr mindless creatures, ones who cannot believe they will lose, or similar.
defence of bases by certain creatures may also fight to death.
i give full xp for those that escape as they have been defeated.

what are you docking xp for here?
i dock xp for ooc knowledge in game like: 'this level of carnivorous creatures with no natural prey is unnatural, therefore somebody must be doing this'

the characters in question believe this is normal as this is the way it has always been as far as they know, hence xp dockage.
i think it is unfair to dock xp for enemies that have escaped.

Actually, the full reason xp was docked for one particular character was the fact that he identified the creatures as wraiths by the fact that it was a necromancer's tower and the fact that I was looking at an entry near the back of the Monster Manual, and proceeded to have is character act in a way that demonstrated full knowledge of the abilities of a wraith including going so far as to recommend tactics to the other characters in-character combined with the fact that he argued with me on nearly every point of the battle, insisting that wraiths were undead and therefore mindless and wouldn't use any form of tactics or retreat when it was clear that they would be destroyed if they continued against the characters in their methods.

I consider using player-knowledge very poor form. I know it is unavoidable sometimes, but this is a ROLE PLAYING GAME. I consider arguing with the DM poor form as well. My players know this.

The xp docked was minor. 100xp for the whole thing along with a request that he try to stay more in-character. The players were awarded full xp for the encounter, which was considerable considering the entire tower is designed for them being roughly 9th level and they are currently 6th with substantially lower wealth than WBL suggests (mostly due to bypassing encounters or not searching suspicious-looking rooms). (But then, that's the way I like it. I've got them excited about their acquisition of a +1 short sword.)

So no worries. I didn't dock xp for the wraiths escaping. Retreat counts as 'defeat' in my game... at least as far as xp goes.

kamikasei
2008-02-04, 07:00 AM
I consider using player-knowledge very poor form. I know it is unavoidable sometimes, but this is a ROLE PLAYING GAME. I consider arguing with the DM poor form as well. My players know this.

Had you docked the character because of the player saying "hey, they're wraiths, they're driven by an all-consuming hunger for the life-force of the still-living, should they really be big-picture kind of thinkers?", that would IMO have been kind of unfair. Given that this guy shouldn't have known IC that they were wraiths, and foolishly tried to claim that all undead (vampires? liches?) must be mindless, and kept arguing continually even once your ruling was clear... I can't object. However, in the general case, I would be wary of enacting penalties simply for suggesting to the DM that he may be mistaken. That way lies unreasonable rulings thoughtlessly made.

On another point, I agree with Rutee. It's totally IC (depending on the level of ecological knowledge (ranks in Survival or Knowledge (nature)), but the basic question is pretty intuitive) to say, "why the hell have a dozen T-Rexes shown up in this area? What are they living off? What would draw them here? Might they have been brought here?" If the answer is simply "inconsistent game ecology", then it's not like they're going to profit from metagame thinking or something. Just explain to them that, sometimes, there are monsters, for no particular reason, and their characters would be pretty familiar with this idea. If their question is valid and they really have figured out some part of your plot in advance, there's not much OOC about that, and no reason to punish them for being clever in a way that doesn't rely on knowledge the characters don't possess.

its_all_ogre
2008-02-04, 07:08 AM
Wait, that's COMPLETELY IC, in theory. If they know the monster's exact diet OOC and can't possibly know it IC, that's one thing, but "I don't see how that thing's going to feed here" when it's a rational observation? Why penalize for that?

so you have no ranks in the relevant knowledge skill and have lived somewhere for your entire life and for the last 400 years of recorded history these creatures have lived there in exactly the same way preying on anything that moves, when suddenly you decide they cannot live that way due to lack of prey.
despite the fact that THEY HAVE DONE SO FOR 400+ YEARS
yes metagaming. their character has no knowledge of ecology.
and I had three times warned him when it was mentioned ooc that if it was mentioned ic there would be an xp penalty.
some people just have to learn the hard way.

Magnor Criol
2008-02-04, 07:24 AM
It sounds like your player's just upset about not finishing them off and thus potentially missing out on some XP. I think that the wraiths fleeing is perfectly logical. Besides the fact that that lets them avoid certain doom at the hands of PCs who were winning, if said wraiths have been locked up in the tower for the past howeverlongitwas, they'd certainly have interest in escaping. And why bother trying to feed on the lifeforce of things that can poke back at you, when you can leave the tower and feed on less dangerous prey?

Monsters with self-preservation are much more three-dimensional and interesting than the simple monster that, against natural inclinations, tries to fight to the death. I think you're doing the right thing with your monsters.

daggaz
2008-02-04, 07:28 AM
I would certainly dock him for what he did, that isn't just metagaming (recognizing the monster from clues inside the game and using his ooc knowledge on it), its meta-metagaming! He broke the fourth wall entirely and flat out _cheated_ by noticing which section of the MM you were thumbing through. I would give extra xp penalty for this, as well as a verbal warning in front of the group.

Lucky me, my players, even our munchkin, dont really metagame. They ask about clues and argue along IC lines of thought, and the results of various knowledge skills as well. The munchkin, surprisingly enough, is the best one of all at not metagaming (its ironic, really), at least when it has to do with harder fights. He screwed up tho once when I introduced them to kobolds and he kept repeating "they're only kobolds, they only have like, one HD."

I didnt dock him xp in this case, cuz almost dying to ten kobolds was more than enough lesson.


As for the wraiths fleeing.... well they are pretty driven to kill, and most undead dont retreat... but if the power of plot demands they be able to overcome the overpowering rage fueling their corrupted souls in order to fight another day, then so be it. Its your plot, the players dont have any right to throw the rulebook at it, and certainly not by metagaming. Nowhere does it say, after all, that you HAVE to use core monster statsblocks as they are.

If your players want to screw your plot, they will have to do it in otherways, like for example, simpy existing in it =P

PS: who's to say the wraiths, having been locked up for centuries, werent more motivated to escape their prison than to kill a couple of adventurers? Who's to say they couldn't sense the life force of an entire sleeping village just down the road? When arguing with your players, the best thing is to remember you get to make it up as you go along, and they dont.

EDIT Ninja'd by Magnus Criol. damn..

Rutee
2008-02-04, 07:51 AM
so you have no ranks in the relevant knowledge skill and have lived somewhere for your entire life and for the last 400 years of recorded history these creatures have lived there in exactly the same way preying on anything that moves, when suddenly you decide they cannot live that way due to lack of prey.
despite the fact that THEY HAVE DONE SO FOR 400+ YEARS
yes metagaming. their character has no knowledge of ecology.
and I had three times warned him when it was mentioned ooc that if it was mentioned ic there would be an xp penalty.
some people just have to learn the hard way.

"What are these things eating?" is a perfectly logical question, on its own. You don't need to know ecology to know that normal creatures eat. If they've existed for 400 years there, and 'there' is such a not-viable-natural ecology that the question "What are these things eating" destroys it, it sounds more like a "problem" on your end. Except it's not really a problem, because even without a wizard feeding them, you're within rights to just handwave it.

Sebastian
2008-02-04, 08:14 AM
Yes, except for mindless creatures or fanatic one generally every monster will try to flee when he is near death, even mindless creatures could try to retreat when they've received too much damage or, for example, when they feel the presence of some hostile element (i.e. fire).
I liked the morale rules in AD&D for that, sure, a master can always just decide it, but sometime it is funnier if even the DM don't know if that mosnters will flee or stay to the bitter end.

Talya
2008-02-04, 08:18 AM
so you have no ranks in the relevant knowledge skill and have lived somewhere for your entire life and for the last 400 years of recorded history these creatures have lived there in exactly the same way preying on anything that moves, when suddenly you decide they cannot live that way due to lack of prey.
despite the fact that THEY HAVE DONE SO FOR 400+ YEARS
yes metagaming. their character has no knowledge of ecology.
and I had three times warned him when it was mentioned ooc that if it was mentioned ic there would be an xp penalty.
some people just have to learn the hard way.



All characters know everything that would be only a DC10 knowledge check, even without the relevant skill trained. 10s are considered the default level of knowledge for all characters.They can't roll untrained, but they can take 10. The only stuff they do not know is stuff with a DC of 11 or higher.

kamikasei
2008-02-04, 08:38 AM
All characters know everything that would be only a DC10 knowledge check, even without the relevant skill trained. 10s are considered the default level of knowledge for all characters.They can't roll untrained, but they can take 10. The only stuff they do not know is stuff with a DC of 11 or higher.

Just to be a pain, technically characters with an Int penalty might only know things with DC 9, or 8, or whatever. Of course, who actually bothers declaring that a particular fact is DC 10 rather than 9 or 8? And why aren't high-Int characters better at general knowledge than average- or low-? ...I dislike the Knowledge rules.

If your player is fixated on the idea that an ecological implausibility in your setting must be the result of some huge evil conspiracy, and won't let it drop however much you handwave, I suspect he's either foolish or winding you up. Either way it doesn't sound much like a case of metagaming. If something makes no sense in the world it still doesn't make sense in character. If there's an obvious explanation that the characters are aware of but the players are not, then tell him so (you don't even have to come up with the explanation if you're feeling particularly arbitrary). If, from the characters' point of view, there is no good answer to the question "what the hell do they eat?!", then it's every bit as much of a mystery in the game as out of it, and you don't need any ranks in a skill for the question to occur to you.

its_all_ogre
2008-02-04, 08:59 AM
but there is a food source, all the other carnivorous beasts that are running around eating stuff.
yes it is plot related, yes i do expect them to find it at some point.
but the point is this is situation normal and has been so for hundreds of years so how does the character know that carnivores eat herbivores, when there are none in the campaign setting and never have been to that characters, or for that matter any characters, knowledge?

sikyon
2008-02-04, 09:34 AM
I don't think that you should dock XP if they argue with you, unless they argue too much.

I also don't think it's stupid for things to run away from PC's, morale is a natural part of life. If they don't want them running away then they should cover the exits.

If he guessed that they were wraiths because it was a necromancer's tower, that would have been fine.

If he guessed they were wraiths, I would have changed their properties on the fly into a homebrew creature, and made his tactics ineffective. If he then tried to argue "that's not what wraiths do" you could just tell him "how do you know it's a wraith".

Finally, tell him that it is logical for wraiths to run away. Undead have no mindless trait, as far as I can see. Therefor, wraiths are not mindless.

valadil
2008-02-04, 10:19 AM
Self preservation is a good thing. Most monsters I run have it. That said, I can see self preservation as an instinct that wraiths and other undead would not possess.

And yes, docking players XP is fine. You just have to be consistent about it. I think that a player stopping the game to argue with you is a worthy cause for XP related penalties.

Zincorium
2008-02-04, 10:24 AM
Wraiths seem aggressive and driven enough to attack until killed if circumstances look good, but they've got an intelligence of 14, it's entirely reasonable for them to decide that they don't have what it takes to kill this group, and they need reinforcements.

I personally would expect them to use their mobility to inform every undead in the tower exactly what was going on, numbers, health, spells used, etc. and swoop in for the coup de grace after the adventurers get stomped.

Citizen Joe
2008-02-04, 10:59 AM
Everyone and everything does stuff according to its motivations. Some creatures have very simple motivation, like golems which are assigned a task. Some are more complex. Typically, an uncontrolled wraith hates life so much and suffers its own existence to the point that it will put killing and or hurting life ahead of its own self preservation. Now, if it cannot hurt life, then it might retreat in hopes of finding life it can harm.

So, self-preservation may be A motivation but it is not the only motivation.

Miles Invictus
2008-02-04, 12:11 PM
I would certainly dock him for what he did, that isn't just metagaming (recognizing the monster from clues inside the game and using his ooc knowledge on it), its meta-metagaming! He broke the fourth wall entirely and flat out _cheated_ by noticing which section of the MM you were thumbing through. I would give extra xp penalty for this, as well as a verbal warning in front of the group.

I think it's bad form to do what amounts to looking over a DM's shoulder, but that's not nearly as bad as getting into a fight with the DM over how a monster should act. I wouldn't blame Fool if he kicked the player out over this.

Personally, I don't like docking experience. If the player is that much of a problem, send him home and continue on with your game. If you let him come back, be mature and act like nothing happened. If he persists in acting belligerent, throw him out for good.

Craig1f
2008-02-04, 02:15 PM
Irreverent Fool-

I'd say I agree with your attitude. Just make sure you're diplomatic about it.

My DMs always homebrew monsters, so that we can't use our knowledge of the MM to break the game. If we use OOC knowledge IC, we lose XP.

Although, what the DMs also do is, their description of the world and monsters varies depending on how the players interpret it. If they describe 3 creatures that sound like they might be wights, and we call them wights, then the DM will start calling them wights, even if they're something else. If they turn out to be something else, we can't complain that he called them wights because "you thought they were wights, which means your character thought they were wights. Which means that your character believed he was just charged by a wight, so that's how I described it.

So if they call a rogue a ninja, don't correct them. Keep calling it a ninja. You're not lying.

mostlyharmful
2008-02-04, 02:32 PM
He wanted a collection of Int 14 creatures to act like robots. There's not really much more to say on his interpretation of how undead "should" behave

As for the arguement/metagame, yeah it's about the level of 100xp docking. Nothing huge or out of proportion but enough to be clear that it's out of line. Which it was.

TheElfLord
2008-02-04, 02:34 PM
Most of my monsters fail to escape due to the PCs trying to chase/kill anything they get into a fight with. Most of mine fight to the death because that is more dramatic than a sad chase scene where the monster is just trying to get away while the PCs hound it till it dies.

McMindflayer
2008-02-04, 02:57 PM
I've always wondered what to do with escaped monsters. I mean, If I give my PC's xp for the monster that got away, and then later they face the same monster and kill it, should I give them xp again? Double Xp for one monster because it ran away?

Anyway, on topic: I'm don't exactly have the best memory, and I keep on thinking things have to fight to the death, though I do have some run away. but then I get stuck with the quandry above. Generally I try to have them run away to never be heard of again, but sometimes the only way to run is farther in... the direction the Pc's are going, so tehy should meet up again somewhere.

Irreverent Fool
2008-02-04, 03:45 PM
I've always wondered what to do with escaped monsters. I mean, If I give my PC's xp for the monster that got away, and then later they face the same monster and kill it, should I give them xp again? Double Xp for one monster because it ran away?

Anyway, on topic: I'm don't exactly have the best memory, and I keep on thinking things have to fight to the death, though I do have some run away. but then I get stuck with the quandry above. Generally I try to have them run away to never be heard of again, but sometimes the only way to run is farther in... the direction the Pc's are going, so tehy should meet up again somewhere.

I usually give them xp again if they encounter the creature much later and ituses its knowledge of their tactics against them. If they manage to chase it down before it's had a chance to recover, no extra xp but at least they get to loot its stuff.

The thing about the wraiths is that after retreat, their intent had been to wait until the PCs got to the middle of maze and harry them into the fireball trap from which they would most certainly die due to large amounts of Constitution drain. But at this point they sensed that their prison had been breached and escaped into the countryside (toward the nearby village that is already being harassed by undead that the PCs managed to free and then failed to deal with).

...depending on how long it takes them to head back to town, they may be in for a very, very unpleasant surprise.

And going up through the floors to warn the rest of the tower's denizens... I don't know why I didn't think of that. It would have been exceedingly cruel, but that's what DMs are here for.

ZeroNumerous
2008-02-04, 03:52 PM
Only my Necrons, Orks, and Space Marines fight to the death.

(Read: Mindless minions, orcs, and knights)

sikyon
2008-02-04, 03:56 PM
I think it's bad form to do what amounts to looking over a DM's shoulder, but that's not nearly as bad as getting into a fight with the DM over how a monster should act. I wouldn't blame Fool if he kicked the player out over this.

Personally, I don't like docking experience. If the player is that much of a problem, send him home and continue on with your game. If you let him come back, be mature and act like nothing happened. If he persists in acting belligerent, throw him out for good.

I think that a player has the right to challenge a DM. Especially if the DM thinks he is doing something right, but is actually doing it wrong. If a DM knows he's doing something wrong then it's fine, but the DM is not god. He may be omnipotent in the game but he is not omniscient, he can make mistakes, and explaining to him why he is making a mistake is good form. If a DM was willing to kick me out because I wanted to argue his interpretation of something (and he didn't say something like "it's special for the campaign" or "houserule"), I'd gladly leave.

It is very bad form for a DM to think that he is god and not take input from players. He is human, and given a ratio of 4players:1DM it's likely that one of his players is indeed smarter than him.

Irreverent Fool
2008-02-04, 04:18 PM
I think that a player has the right to challenge a DM. Especially if the DM thinks he is doing something right, but is actually doing it wrong. If a DM knows he's doing something wrong then it's fine, but the DM is not god. He may be omnipotent in the game but he is not omniscient, he can make mistakes, and explaining to him why he is making a mistake is good form. If a DM was willing to kick me out because I wanted to argue his interpretation of something (and he didn't say something like "it's special for the campaign" or "houserule"), I'd gladly leave.

It is very bad form for a DM to think that he is god and not take input from players. He is human, and given a ratio of 4players:1DM it's likely that one of his players is indeed smarter than him.

If I'm wrong about a rule or how some ability works, terrain modifiers, weapon size categories, etc, then I welcome correction. For example, I had a monster sniping at a PC in a previous adventure and one of my players brought up that it takes a -20 to its hide check if it tried to shoot and then hide again. I corrected my error, the PCs spotted him and hacked the monster to bits.

But when he argues out-of-character that 'wraiths don't act that way' and I point out that they may not be the run-of-the-mill wraiths, they want to destroy you but not necessarily themselves, they saw two of their fellow wraiths fall to your clever tactics, they HAVE AN INTELLIGENCE SCORE and that it says nowhere in the monster entry that a wraith pursues its opponents when it's clear that it will not manage to finish at least one off before the wraith itself is finished off and he CONTINUES to argue with me, I feel justified in docking some XP for breaking the game flow as well as using OOC knowledge IC'ly (the other players had all been referring to the wraiths as 'some kind of horrible ghosts' before he interjected that they are indeed wraiths) after failing his Knowledge: Religion check (total roll 6. The priest of Pelor got an 8)...

I'm not docking XP for arguing with me about how my monsters should act (though I don't appreciate it), but for that in conjunction with what amounts to cheating. I will take it under advisement though and make sure that any xp docking is fully justified, since I get miffed and may not be thinking clearly when they start telling me I'm wrong after I've spent hours poring over the rules to make sure I'm doing things correctly and have to pull out the rules and show them (except in the case of the sniper).

sikyon
2008-02-04, 07:07 PM
If I'm wrong about a rule or how some ability works, terrain modifiers, weapon size categories, etc, then I welcome correction. For example, I had a monster sniping at a PC in a previous adventure and one of my players brought up that it takes a -20 to its hide check if it tried to shoot and then hide again. I corrected my error, the PCs spotted him and hacked the monster to bits.

But when he argues out-of-character that 'wraiths don't act that way' and I point out that they may not be the run-of-the-mill wraiths, they want to destroy you but not necessarily themselves, they saw two of their fellow wraiths fall to your clever tactics, they HAVE AN INTELLIGENCE SCORE and that it says nowhere in the monster entry that a wraith pursues its opponents when it's clear that it will not manage to finish at least one off before the wraith itself is finished off and he CONTINUES to argue with me, I feel justified in docking some XP for breaking the game flow as well as using OOC knowledge IC'ly (the other players had all been referring to the wraiths as 'some kind of horrible ghosts' before he interjected that they are indeed wraiths) after failing his Knowledge: Religion check (total roll 6. The priest of Pelor got an 8)...

I'm not docking XP for arguing with me about how my monsters should act (though I don't appreciate it), but for that in conjunction with what amounts to cheating. I will take it under advisement though and make sure that any xp docking is fully justified, since I get miffed and may not be thinking clearly when they start telling me I'm wrong after I've spent hours poring over the rules to make sure I'm doing things correctly and have to pull out the rules and show them (except in the case of the sniper).

Oh yeah, I'd dock XP for breaking game flow by excessive arguing, and I'd dock serious XP for metagame cheating. But what I was responding to seemed to say to me that if you argue with the DM, you should be booted. Personally, I thought you were lenient. Well, actually I'd give a warning or 2 but if he metagame cheats continuously he's not getting any XP from the encounter, or maybe half.

shadow_archmagi
2008-02-04, 07:23 PM
I'm a very lazy DM. I count XP as solid "One appropriate encounter" chunks. A boss is two chunks. You need five to level up. Therefore, regardless of whether you kill them all, or let them flee, etc, its the same.

I do like the concept of docking XP for excessive DM arguing though. My players like to complain at me. I have a new weapon now.

ashmanonar
2008-02-04, 08:03 PM
Some insight on this:

Our last game session, we faced down a cleric/necromancer (we don't really know which it was, but it had abilities that benefited its undead minions), and after dealing godknowshowmuch damage to it (freaking Bugbears), it Dim-doored and ran for it. (we don't really have the caster levels to deal with that.)

The thing is: this is a living bugbear caster, obviously above average intelligence. This sort of creature would know enough to run away when the situation gets bad.

One of the skeletons that was accompanying it? Probably wouldn't have any sense of self-preservation. It may not have any concept of death, may not even understand that it's attacking an enemy. It's essentially an automaton that's programmed to follow orders.

A Lich? It's a very intelligent creature, with a sense of self; despite the fact that it's Undead, it's definitely gonna wanna preserve itself.

So, really, it's gonna come down to individual monsters more often than not. Mooks and ceramics? Probably not gonna care, or are mindless and don't know any better.

Incidentally, I would probably make an exception for an NPC (or even a PC) that is in a frenzy or rage. They're gonna fight until they a) drop out of rage and notice they're badly wounded/feeling fear, or b)die.

Yahzi
2008-02-04, 08:55 PM
The PCs have had enemies escape them numerous times and had to deal with the repercussions of surviving minions reporting the abilities and tactics of the PCs to their superiors. They've commented on the fact that this doesn't happen with other DMs, which I found surprising.
Many DMs, I think, run games that are basically one-off battles.


Do your NPCs/monsters tend to fight to the death?
Mine beg, borrow, and steal to survive. Many of them will even surrender and offer to work for the PCs if they think it will mean the difference between life and death.

FlyMolo
2008-02-04, 09:06 PM
In my campaign, my players have run up against about 15 monsters so far, all of which are kobolds. I was meaning for the trap I constructed at the beginning of this dungeon to sort of annoy the players, but it's not really working. It's a trap of Summon Kobold 1, activated with a 5-round delay. So the PCs wander into another room, hear a whoomph, and then kobolds come attack them. But I'm DMing for a party of 10 people, so when the kobolds ambushed them, they were easily dispatched. So I gave them kobolds with better-than-average stats, and fighter levels. Still easily dispatched. Next up is an assortment of stuff I find in the monster manual with CR of 3-4, and then Pun-Pun. Seriously, I want these players to run away, but they really don't want to. They don't have to, either, annoyingly.

But back on topic, these kobolds are summoned for the express purpose of fighting the PCs, so they have no qualms about fighting to the death, despite the kobold personality not reflecting that. (The leader did run away once he hit negatives, but when he died the whole party got teleported into the next room, so he had a reason.)

Voyager_I
2008-02-05, 01:44 AM
I support you entirely in your actions. In fact, I might have supported you more if you said "Well, since you clearly know everything there is to know about these things, I guess there wasn't anything for you to learn from fighting them."

And yeah, if any monster has basic sentience and a will to live, expect them to act on it. In general, living things care much more about not being hurt themselves than hurting other things. Animals (or monsters) that have to hunt for themselves should be even more conservative, since they don't have access to magical healing the option of taking down-time to let a wound heal. This isn't so bad in D&D, where there's no such thing as a twisted ankle, but keep in mind that for some creatures, even being wounded is as good as dead. To them, anything that hurts them a little or looks like it could hurt them, even if they think they could ultimately win, wouldn't be worth fighting.

Sir Iguejo
2008-02-05, 03:13 AM
Stay cool, I think that most DM's make their NPCs or intelligent monsters retreat in front of obviously powerful PCs. Exceptions made to Owlbears and such, because is written right after their stats: this monster fights to death.

About player meta-gaming, I have the same problem. One of my players knows EVERY entry of the MM. If I say "the prince killed himself in madness and now roams the castle", the player shouts: "Alright guys! thats an allip! watch out, hes an incorporeal undead and drains Wisdom, so clerics, beware!".

So I roleplay that as if the character already knows what he is battling and every monster tactics, he get no XP. What is he going to learn anyways? So I force my players to think IC.

shadow_archmagi
2008-02-05, 06:35 AM
That my friend, is why you homebrew.

In fact, you can just mix and match. Just take, say, a wraith and give it the stats of some OTHER incorporeal undead. Add the features of a whole bunch, and especially change weaknesses at random.

Sir Iguejo
2008-02-05, 08:29 AM
That my friend, is why you homebrew.

In fact, you can just mix and match. Just take, say, a wraith and give it the stats of some OTHER incorporeal undead. Add the features of a whole bunch, and especially change weaknesses at random.


exactly what im doing.
in this case I mixed the allip and the wraith and came up with a ND 4 monster.
but the player complained (grammar?) about rules and meh, showing me the monster manual et cetera and claiming that I was wrong when I changed the allip blahblah

and he complained too because I used a "CE paladin" once. There was sort of an enigma where the players should beat the mirror part of themselves, only with opposed alignment (level too low for blackguard). "How can he Lay on Hands if he's evil???"

its_all_ogre
2008-02-05, 08:53 AM
players like that annoy me.:smallfurious:

Mike_G
2008-02-05, 10:50 AM
I homebrew the majority of my monsters for just this reason.

Most of us have been playing for twenty odd years, so we know all the monsters in the MM, and while most of us can roleplay ignorance, we do have one player who can't help himself.

He can play a Barbarian with Int as his dump stats, and he'll still hear a description and say "That's an Iron Golem. Don't use Lightning Bolt, it'll Haste him."

I got sick of yelling at him, so I just don't throw MM foes at them, unless it's just thugs and cannon fodder. The interesting encounters, henchmen and BBEG are always homebrew. They may look like monsters the player (but not his character) has seen, but they won't have all the vulnerabilities he knows by heart from page 47 of the MM.