Sizing up your enemies

[Cowboy_ninja]

To avoid situations like the story below i'd like some tactics for me as a PC on how to size up my opponents. how to decide whether to fight or take flight.

i ran this ego manica of a fighter who loved to pound on stuff. so when the chance came to pound on something twice his size he jumped at the chance. he critied and between him and his mount (dire boar) they nearly killed the giant in one round. then the giant killed the two of them in one round...

i dont blame the DM. He specifically mentioned that he was going to avoid that thing where we cross one forest as lvl 2's and only encounter wolf packs and cross the same forest as lvl 15's and encounter dragons and such.

so yea stuff for PC on how to make the decision flight or fight?

[Viscount Einstrauss]

I let my characters make appropriate knowledge checks or base wisdom checks when they want to size up a foe. I tell them how hard the fight I personally believe it would be to them based on their roll. When they do poorly or the monster's just completely out of their league, I may lie to them based on appearances.

[Human Paragon 3]

I believe its a sense motive roll, it can be found in the complete adventurer I think, or else the complete warrior.

[Green Bean]

There's no actual RAW mechanic for doing that, but my group pretty much does what the Viscount does. It's usually a Sense Motive check, with bonuses and penalties for class. For example, fighters are good at telling how skilled other fighters are, and rangers are good at evaluating their Favoured Enemies, but neither would do so well at figuring out how powerful a wizard is unless they're really observant/experienced. Conversely, wizards can tell how powerful other arcane casters are easily ("That wizard has a bat guano stain on his robe, so he must be at least 5th level"), but won't do so well against a barbarian. Also, we allow characters to make opposed Bluff checks to raise or lower their apparent skill.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I believe its a sense motive roll, it can be found in the complete adventurer I think, or else the complete warrior.

Yeah. Complete Adventurer. But I think those rules are opposed by a Bluff check, which doesn't make much sense if the opponent is making no attempt to conceal his or her ability. But I was reading an old issue of Dragon (the number escapes me at the moment)recently and found it had the precursor to those rules, but using flat DCs instead. You can probably use both versions, depending on whether or not the opponent is trying to conceal his or her skill.

[Kurald Galain]

I believe its a sense motive roll, it can be found in the complete adventurer I think, or else the complete warrior.

Alternatively, use the Knowledge (having read every single monster handbook as a player) skill.

[mostlyharmful]

You could always do what your character would do if they didn't know for sure in reality, which is assume that it's a credible threat until proven otherwise. Once you get to high levels you should be able to recognize the genuine threats, either monsters or high NPCs with reputations, and at lower ones most everything is a threat (which led to one of the best lines in a level 1 party I was in "Oh crap, it's a weasel, RUN AWAY!")

[goat]

I don't think sense motive should really apply in a lot of situations.

If you're looking at someone/thing who's not seen you yet and you're judging whether they'll attack you, yes. But deciding whether or not that character can then beat you up? What part of their motivation would tell you that? Surely it should be based on knowledge of the creature, which is why each creature type falls into a knowledge domain?

I don't GM, but I'd be inclined to either base it off the relevant knowledge skill for the opponent type, or maybe a wisdom/intelligence check using BAB as a bonus (I'm a level 15 fighter, I have years of experience of getting in fights with creatures from across the planes, I'm fairly sure I can take that Monster).

Set the DC as being... pfft... CR+10? Fail by more than 5, have no idea. Fail by less than 5, have a vague idea of where it is in your power range (We'll smash it to pulp, it could go either way, it'll pulp us). Succeed, and know how tough the fight would be in a lot more detail (We can walk all over them; This fight will be closely matched but we should win without too much problem; This fight will be dangerous, but it can be won; This enemy is beyond our abilities). Succeed by 5 or more and know how dangerous the fight would be AND WHY (Previous results plus a fact. I.e. It's too strong, it has too many special abilities, the terrain is all in its favour).

Then your knowledge-ists can each have their specific group they can well judge, and your fighters can make a gut assessment of just about anything.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

If you're looking at someone/thing who's not seen you yet and you're judging whether they'll attack you, yes. But deciding whether or not that character can then beat you up? What part of their motivation would tell you that? Surely it should be based on knowledge of the creature, which is why each creature type falls into a knowledge domain?

Knowledge makes a certain amount of sense for determing the threat level of a particular type of creature as a whole, but it doesn't make a lot of sense when it comes to specific individuals. Say you got a lot of Knowledge (local) so you know a lot about humanoids such as dwarves. But why should your general knowledge abot dwarves give you any advantage in determining that the particular dwarf you see is a 15th level Swordsage that can kick your 3rd level Rogue's but from here to next Friday?

You don't learn that by knowing about dwarves. You learn that by observing the person you wish to size up, particularly noting how they move and fight (in all versions of the official rules, you take substantial penalties for trying to size up an opponent without seeing them in combat). Sense Motive is used largely because it's the"find out about people by reading body language and other subtle signs" skill. The same principles apply to sizing up a foe that way as they do when determining whether or not someone is lying to you. You're simply paying attention to the signals a person may not realize he or she is sending.

Anyway, the Dragon issue I was looking at was #301. It's in the article on Swashbucklers. Yes, it's 3.0. No, it does not matter in this case; nothing about it needs conversion.

[Citizen Joe]

Check

Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

It takes different knowledge skills for various types of monsters. Unfortunately, untrained you don't get this because:

Untrained

An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

I don't want to derail this into player knowledge vs. character knowledge argument, but these checks are to find out what your character knows that the player doesn't know. Some people are sticklers and say you don't know your rear from a hole in the ground without a knowledge check. I don't subscribe to that belief. I generally spout off about lots of stuff in character without the slightest check. If anyone says you can't possibly know such and such, I respond with "You're right... it's just and educated guess... I could be wrong." The funny part is, very often I am wrong, or I made stuff up right off the cuff.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I don't want to derail this into player knowledge vs. character knowledge argument, but these checks are to find out what your character knows that the player doesn't know. Some people are sticklers and say you don't know your rear from a hole in the ground without a knowledge check.

To tell, the truth, I think I side a tad bit more with those people. It's just the DC 10+HD, I have a problem with. (And maybe the Knowledge Checks being untrained.) Some creatures and their abilities simply need DCs below 10. 'Cause even "common knowledge" isn't as common as it's made out to be.

Of course, the DCs should vary from campaign to campaign. It's common player knowledge that Trolls are vulnerable to fire. And in a campaign where the populace is plagued attacks by trolls, the DC should be between 0 and 5 to know that trolls are vulnerable to fire. However, in a campaign where the only trolls live on the other side of the world in remote tribes, the DC should probably be over 20.

I don't subscribe to that belief. I generally spout off about lots of stuff in character without the slightest check. If anyone says you can't possibly know such and such, I respond with "You're right... it's just and educated guess... I could be wrong." The funny part is, very often I am wrong, or I made stuff up right off the cuff.

Heh. Cute. As long as it's reconciled in character.

[Zim]

Well, I try to encourage my players to actually talk to creatures when they're not immediately hostile. This doesn't always work since they're a trigger happy lot, but it can certainly give them time to evaluate the danger presented by an opposing group and perhaps avoid a fight that's over their heads. This is accomplished by role-play and/or a few appropriate skill checks. Surprise attacks are another matter altogether.

As for actually getting the scoop on what they're facing, that's a knowledge (what the heck is that?) check. I use DC 15+CR to give them useful information about a creature. That's a bit different than the standard 10+HD rule, but it works out to about the same thing and they usually roll in the high 20's anyways. If they make the roll, I tell them the creature name, type and a useful bit of info for every 5 points they succeed by. If they fail by less than 5, I tell them the creature type. For rare, unique or previously undiscovered creatures, I add 5 or 10 to the DC.