Judging creature strength

[Mayhem]

The only problem with a skill-based approach is that those people with the most outright combat experience - the fighter types - are likely to be teh least knowledgeable about their opponents ability.

Maybe the viewer should get to include his BAB, the same way the victim does in a feint?

[Ronan]

Part of what i like about this game is the risk factor and the fact that players need to take necessary IC precautions to address this risk.

Well, D&D's combat system is already full of risk. With the very high risk/reward ratio ALFA has placed on most static content (compared to DM content), most PCs seem to die before they achieve any significant rewards from static content.

In addition, much of D&D combat system is centered around powers or items with a finite number of uses. Though this is mostly true for mages and pure casters, judging the strength of an enemy is a requirement for many classes to survive. Without being able to do so, you can waste needed spells and items on weak enemies (death later) or hold off on using them against strong enemies (death sooner).

Farmers, of course, are different. They tend to concentrate on only one sort of monster type in one sort of area, and they know how to fight them well enough to remove much of any risk. However, I don't think this system will truely aid farmers, because successfully farmers I've seen hinge on only hitting specific spawns. If they already know the difficulty and tactics to use against such spawns, so I don't think this system is going to tell them anymore than they already know.

Go ask the local scribe/lorekeeper about it and then go out prepared.

Thats assuming there is a DM on, of course. If there was, the DM could describe those level 5 barbarian goblins as the nasty little brutes they are, with the heads of ogres they'd slain in their stewpot.

How does this relate to low int player who have very little knowledge of the range of opposition against them in faerun?

He can see the number of skulls one orc tribe has on display vs. another, or the fear the underlings seem to show the leader as he orders them around.

SOmetimes it's 'fun' to go in and get your ass handed to you and have to get the hell out of there to fight another day rather then be able to know your chances of survival beforehand.

Well thats true, and I certainly don't want to totally remove that possibility. So I think a sense motive check with possible false results may be a good way to go, though adding BAB to it also seems like a good idea.

In a computer medium, one thing we can do is devise mechanics much more complex and desirable than are really do-able in a PnP environment. For example, we can compare the number of levels the target has in common with the PC, and give an appropriate bonus or penalty. For example, sorcerers or mages would be better apt to judge other sorcerers or mages, and fighters/barbarians/paladins/rangers would also be better suited to judge their own.

[ç i p h é r]

Even if Plan B isn't totally accurate, seeing that 6 Goblins are 'Easy' and one is 'Hard' is good data for a scout to bring back. Currently, he just reports the floaty names.

This is exactly the problem though. What's easy for one class could be down right hard for another and there's too many variables for the system to make that conclusion for each player. So if we're going to bother at all, give some meaningful data - class, level, arms and armor for instance - and let each player decide on their own if that's "easy" or "hard" for them.

Rather than said scout coming back to the party and saying "my widget says they're easy kobolds" and everyone wondering what that means, the scout can come back and say "these are novice kobold warriors (level 1-3) wielding light crossbows and wearing standard leather". The challenge can then be determined individually by each member of the party.

[Fionn]

The only problem with a skill-based approach is that those people with the most outright combat experience - the fighter types - are likely to be teh least knowledgeable about their opponents ability.

Maybe the viewer should get to include his BAB, the same way the victim does in a feint?

Pretty easy to put in a Class based modifyer to the skill if we wish. We could even look up Domains, check for synergy, etc. Coding it is the easy part. Writing up all of what the code needs to do (and getting agreement on that) is much harder.

ç i p h é r - I don't have much of an issue with displaying the BW screen, HD, or even class/level info on a mob. I'd just like to have a reaonsable roll associated with getting valid data. Librarian1 should not be as good at sizing up a situation in the field as Barbarian1.

[ç i p h é r]

Be it skill or feat, I think it should be something a player must invest in to acquire the ability. Perhaps involve both: take the feat to allow the skill check...that way both *choice* and experience factor into it.

[Mayhem]

Be it skill or feat, I think it should be something a player must invest in to acquire the ability. Perhaps involve both: take the feat to allow the skill check...that way both *choice* and experience factor into it.

I disagree - once again, it would be the fighters - the folk that practically by definition spend their time learning just how tough these things are - that would be the least able to gain any knowledge of them.

Whilt a rogue who has lived in a city his whole life will be saying "Oh, its an Ogre, its about twice as tough as you , Igor but as a team we can handle it"

[Fionn]

Ftr INT 8 would be hard pressed to keep up with a Rog INT 14 by mid levels, but if we assign a +4 bonus for warriors they should excel at PC1. If you really want to make Ftr the boss, we can assign a +4 +1/lvl. The damn mechanics are up to us. The issue is coming to agreement on what mechanics we wish.

[Dorn]

Good point mahem.

But then can wizards get a better idea of how good that grubby old man over there is with magc than a fighter? i mean before a spelll has been cast?

If so then that grubby old man (actually a recluse level 69 wizard) would seem like nothing to a fighter, but everything to a wizard.

Another reason why i'm not sure i like the idea of meta threat modifiers.

If you know something then you can guage it's power relatively. Often if it's the biggest goblin or wearing a lot of shrunken skulls it's likely to be a chief or a shaman.

If you dnt know something you have to make a judgement. If you've neverseen an umber hulk are you REALLY going to mistake something that big and ugly it as a non-threat?

And sometimes...sometimes you'll get somethig that looks innocent but is actually a deadly thing. Thats the world (here or faerun). Suck it up and always have a contingency plan and DONT SOLO.

I cant remember if it was ronan or ciph above who indicated that we cant rely on builders to follow the monster manual or anything.

THis concerns me greatly as if we cant direct threat ranges or builders to follow the MM...we are also basically saying we cant expect them to follow ALFA standards for loot, merchants etc. We have to have one or the other, builders do things properly, or we let things be variable which may end up problems.

EDIT: I assume we are talking static spawns? Remember we are talking about uber nasty and very strange spawns there will often be related to DM events and spawns and then players can/should Roleplay with the DM to find out informaiton about creatures.

[Fionn]

We are essentially talking about an issue caused by builders failing to give a reasonable clue to PCs about the challenge presented by a static encounter. If we could be certain that Goblins were CR 1-3, then PCs woudln't need any meta info. Without that assurance, PCs would have some ability to garner info if a DM were on, and should therefore have some ability even without a DM (unless we drastically reduce the opportunity/requirement for static combat).

The main issue is coming up with a fair and reasonable system for such meta-info. Granted, a Wiz20 may *appear* like a beggar, but that is unlikely even to a Ftr10. It would be pretty trivial to code an advantage to recognize threats from within your own class (or even aggregate class - Warrior, Mage, Priest, etc). It would also be trivial to code an advantage to melee types, scout types, or whatever we wish.

No system will ever be perfect, but please stop giving corner cases to prove 'It will never work'. If we wish a reasonable system, and we wish to expend the effort, we can do so. A better arguement would be that we don't have the resources to do it justice (I don't agree).

[Ronan]

But then can wizards get a better idea of how good that grubby old man over there is with magc than a fighter? i mean before a spelll has been cast?

I wouldn't code it to do such. Currently I'm thinking of combining weighted class modifiers (ie, fighters judge fighters/barbs/rangers/paladins more easily than rogues), coorisponding knowlege skill for the creature type (as listed under the knowlege skill section of the SRD) and a sense motive check. Too complex to work out in a PnP game, but easily doable by a computer.

And sometimes...sometimes you'll get somethig that looks innocent but is actually a deadly thing. Thats the world (here or faerun). Suck it up and always have a contingency plan and DONT SOLO.

Well, with ALFA's in-game population as it is now, not soloing isn't always so easy (especially during travel).

I cant remember if it was ronan or ciph above who indicated that we cant rely on builders to follow the monster manual or anything.

THis concerns me greatly as if we cant direct threat ranges or builders to follow the MM...we are also basically saying we cant expect them to follow ALFA standards for loot, merchants etc. We have to have one or the other, builders do things properly, or we let things be variable which may end up problems.

It was me. I'm the tech admin, I've got no control over what builders do or do not do. Maybe they will follow the MMs and maybe they won't, but either way I still think some mechanic is needed. Creature AI is going to use it, so players should have access to it as well.

We are planning on taking static loot drops out of the hands of builders as well. Maybe I'd be less pessimistic if I had seen more initiative on the part of admin to fix spawn/loot/merchant problems during ALFA1.

EDIT: I assume we are talking static spawns? Remember we are talking about uber nasty and very strange spawns there will often be related to DM events and spawns and then players can/should Roleplay with the DM to find out informaiton about creatures.

Yeah, only static stuff. And it could be disabled with a setting on the creature.

[Mayhem]

Hmm...

Of course, the threat presented by a given foe varies greatly.

A fighter or barbarian ought to be best at judging whether, weight-for-weight - he can take a given monster in melee.

A wizard, however, ought to be best at judging those subtle cues that indicate a beast might have some magical power at its disposal.

A rogue might not be very good at judging how dangerous a beast is - but might, perhaps, be a expert at judging how alert it is - whether or not he might be able to sneak past it, for example.

What would rock - but be hideously complicated - would be an examine that gave you a report that looked like:

Physical Attack: xxx (relates the monsters BAB to your AC)
Physical Defence: xxx (relates the your BAB to the monsters AC)
Magic: xxx (includes visible equipment)
Alertness: xxx

Bob the fighter watches the ogre, and his report looks like this:

Physical Attack: Even
Physical Defence: Weak
Magic: Appears Low.
Alertness: Appears Low.

Eric the mage watches the same ogre (which happens to be an ogre shaman), and it looks like this:

Physical Attack: Appears High
Physical Defence: Appears High
Magic: Moderate.
Alertness: Appears Low.

**

Probably way too complicated, but a man can dream...

[Cassiel]

This is a great idea.

However, can I just express my concern about fighters being de facto better at guessing how powerful an opponent is? Every D&D class, particularly in NWN, engages in combat regularly. Yes, fighters get closer to things, but they get as much info from being knocked 30 feet into a wall by a hill giant as the wizard does from seeing them fly through the air. Intuitively, you'd call this an INT-based skill, and I don't think fighters are necessarily better at it than anyone else.

May I ask a related question? Will we have at least some distinct knowledge skills in NWN2? If so, the PHB specifically states (p.78 3.5 edition) which are appropriate for which monster type:

Arcana: dragons, magical beasts
Dungeoneering: aberrations, oozes
Local: humanoids
Nature: animals, fey, giants, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin
The Planes: outsiders, elementals

The question then becomes, is it more appropriate for the check to be Sense Motive or Knowledge (x)? And which is technically easier? I don't know the answer to the question, but I think there's an argument for allowing the better of the two, and giving a +2 synergy bonus for 5+ ranks in the other skill (I know this sounds horribly complex, but if it's not scriptable I am sure Ronan will tell me (to sod off!)). We then have several options based on Spidar's info:

(a) Sense Motive or Knowledge (X) vs. opponent's Bluff
(b) +/- Fighters get +4 as a class skill at level 1
(c) +/- Fighters (or all classes?) get +1 per 4 levels
(d) +/- a +2 synergy bonus for 5 or more ranks in whichever skill you aren't using to make the roll

All but (d) would apply to the monster's bluff roll as well - so if we allow all classes +1 per 4 levels, the monsters get that per 4HD, etc.

Spider's outcomes seem fine to me. Hope this helps. What'd I forget to put in?

[Ronan]

Nah, most of this stuff is pretty easy, at least compared to the other stuff we are doing for the ACR2. I'd actually already planned on using knowlege skills as Cassiel described. Since BAB follows combat ability in D&D, we can use that as a basis to judge combat skills. Judging arcane classes could be knowledge arcana, and divine caster classes knowledge religion, though I think I'll keep sense motive a large element in all calculations.

[Mayhem]

This is a great idea.

However, can I just express my concern about fighters being de facto better at guessing how powerful an opponent is? Every D&D class, particularly in NWN, engages in combat regularly. Yes, fighters get closer to things, but they get as much info from being knocked 30 feet into a wall by a hill giant as the wizard does from seeing them fly through the air. Intuitively, you'd call this an INT-based skill, and I don't think fighters are necessarily better at it than anyone else.

Somebody who's bread and butter is the skillful weilding of physical weapons ought to be better placed to judge an opponents ability to do the same than some scrawny geek who spends most of his time reading - even if what he is reading is "Shorburts theory of how hard monsters can hit you"

If you use Knowledge skills, Fighter types who have been fighting orcs for 5 levels will likely know less about how they fight than a second level mage who's only read about them.

Fighters don't get to do much better than other folk - let them at least get every benefit they can from their specialised lifestyle.

[Dorn]

No system will ever be perfect, but please stop giving corner cases to prove 'It will never work'. If we wish a reasonable system, and we wish to expend the effort, we can do so. A better arguement would be that we don't have the resources to do it justice (I don't agree).

Fionn old buddy old pal

I never said 'it will never work' or 'this is a terrible idea' or 'WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!'.

I was just expressing my opinion and i think i only ever said that the system may concern me. If it proves that it can be done reasonably i'll be happy, and if it's unreasonable to me but the majority want it, well then it's all of our game so the majority should win out and i'll happily go along wirth it. It's a minor thing anyways.

If people don't express their concerns and thoughts then sometimes importnat features can be missed and a feature may never be as good as it could be.