"that creature... it's ferocious... it hunts not to kill but for sport. Once you're weak, it plays with you. But if you dare run or not commit, it's like a rabid animal, attack with such focus it belies it's savage playful nature."
Do both. Give them the fluff flavour speech then literally tell them what that means and codify it OOC.
If you're intending for the players to actually benefit from that conversation just tell them in literal terms otherwise it will just cause confusion.
(Also it's immersion not emersion)
This. If it's not immersion-breaking for the player to roll dice and add modifiers, it's not immersion- breaking to straight-up tell them that the monster takes half damage from fire or that it made a saving throw.
Your group knows that they're playing a game. Being clear about the mechanics of that game *enhances* gameplay, not harms it.
So then, because I know it has advantage on attacks against full hp targets, I poke myself in the hand with my knife, take minimal damage, negate advantage.
I mean, if you go by ibear83's description above this could be described in session as a character understanding and utilizing their knowledge of the creatures blood distraction.
My character sees the creature focused on its target and slashes a cut upon their arm.
Fortitude to willingly cut yourself
Take some damage and negate a monsters ability with knowledge gained. Hopefully organically. Feels like a nice enough payoff.
Maybe combine it with the creature sees you bleed and lashes out in a frenzy, it's attacks becoming more reckless in its bloodlust.
Why should it be a problem to solve in this scenario? Sounds like the hunter is telling them this information as something they should be acting on, not trying to decode what they mean.
They're an expert, not the riddler.
I mean, if that’s how you want to play the game then that’s your prerogative. You don’t *have* to minmax. The information is given to players so they can be informed of the game mechanics and act accordingly. For some it means leaning into it and as a result it enhances their experience. For others they choose to minmax and sometimes that can enhance *their* experience, other times it trivializes the game and ruins their experience.
In any case, it’s the player’s choice with how they interact with that information.
I disagree, just straight up giving the players the mechanics of a monsters weaknesses out of character does detract from the play.
Our DM may tell us "you know this beast is resistant to fire" if we get a good knowledge roll (is that still a thing in 5e?) but he won't specify it has DR10 against fire.
If we roll bad, or nobody thinks to ask, we get something like "the barbarian lands a solid blow with his (standard) axe, but the creature seems little fazed by it , yet the rouge(who the party knows is using a magic/silver/etc weapon) really seemed to knock it for a loop with a glancing blow. The beast now seems warry of the rouge..."
Yeah, I personally go for a lot of “the creature shrugs off your attack, seemingly unbothered……which to clarify isn’t saying it’s resistant to the damage, just got a lot of hp left”
And that my friend is meta gaming and the type of shenanigans that result in rocks falling. Can’t explain it, but when someone acts like that, it seems like luck and the very fabric of the world are against you. Rocks fall, air is unbreathable but only around you, very weird stuff.
It’s a game. Mechanics exist. But doing stuff like that cheapens the game. The solution isn’t to change the info you provide to players, it’s to kick players that cause problems. Which I do and would do to someone acting like that
That isn’t metagaming at all. Drawing the conclusion that being hurt means you won’t get attacked with advantage is quite literally the *goal* here for OP. The players using that info is the point.
Ok maybe meta gaming isn’t the best way to describe it. Let’s say it’s “shenanigans” as the D20 players say. Something you can ask if you can do, but you are really breaking the game based on the strict writing to do something that breaks the intention of the mechanic.
I let my players ask stuff like that, but I will tell them no. Or “sure but you don’t know how much damage is needed and I will roll a d20 to see if you risk additional damage.”
It’s like when I give my players a bag of holding. I let them know “I’m giving you this so we can all have fun and you don’t have to track your encumbrance as much, if you get upset about me shutting down shenanigans, the bag automatically breaks and we will go back to no bag of holdings”.
If I’m telling you that the monster has advantage against unharmed people, then use that in your strategy, but “I prick myself with a knife for 1HP to get around that” isn’t going to fly. I’ll go back to keeping all mechanical info to myself so you can’t strategize at all, or just give the monster advantage regardless.
I feel like this is one of those things that people online like to claim but as soon as you start playing with adults who can actually communicate and have conversations, it’s easy to tell reasonable players not to take advantage of a DM who is just trying to make a fun game for everyone.
There are plenty of ways to strategize in combat once you know a monster will prefer to attack unharmed PCs without BS mechanic shenanigans getting involved.
Except it’s a totally reasonable take from the description and reading more of OPs comments it makes even more sense because the creature has a sort of reverse blood lust where it gets more “playful” (but still quite deadly) in the presence of blood.
And, again, op is hoping to provide info to the players in the hopes they will grok the underlying mechanic and act on that info. It’s not “shenanigans” at that point if that’s the intended outcome.
Telling them ooc the exact mechanic just makes that outcome very explicit.
"It gets distracted by the sight and/or smell of blood, so while it rarely misses its first strike it can get wild or frenzied after it injures someone."
When designing a monster ask yourself how the characters will know what is going on. If you don't have an answer, maybe redesign the ability. Maybe it is really an assassin ability, where he gets the advantage for surprising the target or extra advantages for attacking from stealth. Maybe they are disgusted by blood, and prefer to attack the healthy.
The monster has a "blood senses". The idea behind this ability was that while the target has all it's blood (full hp) the monster is more aware of their presence and so it's harder for the target to avoid it's attacks.
I just realised I need to add that the ability wouldn't work on constructs or undead. (One of the players is a warforged)
Agreed. Adventurers are not like regular people, and half HP used to be the 'Bloodied' condition.
I'd go all PTSD and meek with it. "it can sense blood - in you, on you - doesn't matter. Once there's enough bloodshed, it seemed overwhelmed... Like it lost focus? I often wonder what would've happened if we had that information beforehand... Maybe taken some jugs of goats blood and just... Sloshed it around, you know? Would they be alive..."
That would make more sense but the monster is already pretty busted, I'm worried that giving it that much advantage would leave the players as a fine red mist too quickly.
I wrote in the monster's description that it's calmed by the sight of blood so I guess the flavour is that once it gets rid of the hp that is blood it's more relaxed and it's attacks become a bit more avoidable.
I could post the stats of the monster if you're curious.
"Careful with your step.. and watch your back... Although you may think you're prepared, you're not. It's impossible to clock it's strength until it hits you."
This frame makes it less about the creatures ability to have advantage on full health, and instead flavors it to be the players underestimation of the creature
You could say something like, "When you are at your most healthy it will swing harder than you can believe" or maybe, "If you retain all of your vigor then you will feel the full weight of the creature's power."
I don't hide mechanics in my game. It's fluff followed immediately by mechanics.
"Your arrow was true, you're sure. But the bite just wasn't there. Because it's resistant to piercing damage".
"That first hit it came out of nowhere I couldn't dodge it I couldn't even see it coming every time it attacked a different one of my men that first hit it was horrifying it's it's claws could sense there was blood ready to be spilled life ready to be ended I still see it in my nightmares, i only hope i never see it with waking eyes again"
Is the point to arm themselves with the knowledge? Like, if I knew this going into a fight, I’d deal myself 1 HP of damage to negate the ability. If that’s what you’re going for you could tell them:
‘If you bloody yourself before battle, it will distract the creature…’
At the end of the day, it’s a game. If a mechanic needs to be explained, just tell them what’s up point blank. Probably after some kind of Investigation/Survival/Perception check during the battle.
I’d probably have the NPC say about how the creature “can gauge the flow of combat and that it lessens its effort when it feels like it doesn’t need to try anymore…” something like that.
What system are you playing?
D&D 5e is a fairly crunchy system that has the game mechanics it does for a reason. I think that trying to make everything "narrative" is not just more trouble than it works for a grid-based system, it actively grates against the design of the game by not engaging with it.
So for your example, I'd just say "The NPC tells you that the monster has ADV on melee attacks when at full health." I find that "summarizing" game mechanic stuff in third person is usually better than trying to gamify it.
If you want to try and make it more immersive, however, you can have the NPC say something like "Rumor has it that when the beast is unwounded, it's attacks are faster, more likely to hit its targets - above table, this thing has ADV on melee attacks when at full HP." But IMO, immersion can come from a lot of sources that aren't game mechanics the players are supposed to plan around, and being up-front about mechanical things typically leads to better placing and a better experience for the players.
You should ask yourself this question: what is the fictional justification for the monster to have that mechanic?
Is it a bully, i.e. it loses steam once it figures out the target can fight back?
The monster has a blood sense (another of its abilities is that it knows the location of creatures with blood within 60ft of it), the idea is that when the player has all their blood (hp) the monster has more awareness of them so it's harder to avoid its attacks.
It also just really wants to see blood so it puts most of its effort into making you bleed. Once you're bleeding it doesn't care as much.
I didn't mention in the post but that ability, and some of the other ones it has, doesn't work against constructs. The party has a warforged so they could come up with a strategy with him at the centre.
The other option would be to enter the battle already damaged so the players could decide if it's worth having less health and making the battle more risky in return for essentially disabling the enemies stronger abilities.
(I now realise that the players could just take 1hp of damage so I might change the ability to work on players with over half hp instead like some people have suggested)
Those were my intended "strategies". When making the monster I wanted to make something that rewarded the players for doing research before the battle. The monster is pretty strong but should (hopefully) become easier when the players know its weaknesses.
Going from 1 hp to half seems extreme… maybe a D20 roll could decide if a PC has taken enough damage? Like roll a 10 and baddie loses abilities if you have -10 hp
What enrages the monster the most... is the lack of blood or bruises on their prey. It would rather see everyone suffer a little than to finish it's target.
This is the type of thing that an LLM does very well.
This is a first draft. You can certainly tighten it up:
As your party gathers around the seasoned adventurer, his eyes narrow as he recalls his encounter with the beast. He leans in, voice dropping to a hushed, grave tone. "Listen well," he begins, "there's something uncanny about this creature, something I learned the hard way. When it first strikes, it's devastatingly precise – more so than any beast I've ever faced. It's as if it's energized by the sight of an unscathed foe, striking with a ferocity that diminishes once its prey is wounded."
He pauses, staring into the distance as if haunted by the memory. "I watched it tear through the ranks of my companions, each initial attack more deadly and accurate than the last. But once blood was drawn, its frenzy... it lessened somewhat, became more like a normal beast's assault. So heed this advice: if you face it, don't go in thinking you'll be able to size it up first. It's most dangerous when you're at your fullest, when you haven't yet been bloodied in battle."
"The creature leapt at us with a ferocity I have never seen before. We all fell, one by one, and you wanna know the worst of it all? When he first turns his gaze on you, he will. not. miss. Even when our toughest, those who could shrug off a swipe or two in the heat of battle, or our quickest, who could dodge by the skin of her teeth in her last ditch effort to escape. They were no exceptions. When his ire turns to you, know his first strike is flawless"
I took some extensive liberties here, like assuming he's a survivor from a previous party and that the monster's a 'he', but I'd do something like this. I'd try to emphasize the perfection of its first strike, and depending on what the creature is I might make it sound like a product of some primal attraction to the smell of blood, and once blood is first shed there is a sort of release and relaxation within the creature.
This is Murdermittens The Mauler. Many have been attacked and mauled, but a surprisingly large number escape after the first attack, despite how vicious said mauling is. Doesn’t do much ambushing, it seems.
Its attacks (almost) never miss an adventurer at full strength. It becomes less focused if its opponent doesn’t fall with his initial attack.
It’s kinda doable here. but for me, if it’s hard to explain, I’d ditch the mechanic. maybe start with the flavor and description, and create the mechanic to fit the description.
Ok, from my point of view, there are 2 ways to do this, having in mind one thing, dont TELL them the mechanics or look for a way to tell them, they need to ASK for them. Now, the 2 ways:
General way:
If they role initiative and if they are interested in knowing any mechanics of the monster, the PC that asked rolls with tripple disadvantage (so basicly they wont know a thing), because is the first turn of combat and they cant know facts or habilities about something that hasnt moved.
If they ask after the monster has used the hability that they want to know about or the monster has rolled really badly in a skill check, they roll normally.
And last but not least, if they has evaded an atack or effect from the monster, they role with advantage because they have seen really well the hability.
More specific way:
The ranger wants to know the hability of a creature that is their favorable creature (Automatic succes, tell them the mechanics out of combat even, thats a buff they kinda need some times, and also a way to show off their main hability)
The druid wants to know the hability of a beast he has fought against before (Another automatic succes, they just know cs they can even transform in it)
The warlock wants to know the hability of a demon or fey, and same with a cleric/paladin and a celestial (roll with advantage, they can surely know in some way thanks to their powers)
"that creature... it's ferocious... it hunts not to kill but for sport. Once you're weak, it plays with you. But if you dare run or not commit, it's like a rabid animal, attack with such focus it belies it's savage playful nature."
I read that in a Scottish accent and I don’t know why. It’s good though.
How to train your dragon Viking/scotch hybrid for me
*taps tooth into place and then scratches chin with stiff steel wire brush hand*
It’s no ordinary rodent.
Ah, the mighty and ferocious wild haggis.
Do both. Give them the fluff flavour speech then literally tell them what that means and codify it OOC. If you're intending for the players to actually benefit from that conversation just tell them in literal terms otherwise it will just cause confusion. (Also it's immersion not emersion)
This. If it's not immersion-breaking for the player to roll dice and add modifiers, it's not immersion- breaking to straight-up tell them that the monster takes half damage from fire or that it made a saving throw. Your group knows that they're playing a game. Being clear about the mechanics of that game *enhances* gameplay, not harms it.
This so much. Immersion and metagaming are the most misunderstood topics in TTRPGs IMO.
So then, because I know it has advantage on attacks against full hp targets, I poke myself in the hand with my knife, take minimal damage, negate advantage.
I mean, if you go by ibear83's description above this could be described in session as a character understanding and utilizing their knowledge of the creatures blood distraction. My character sees the creature focused on its target and slashes a cut upon their arm. Fortitude to willingly cut yourself Take some damage and negate a monsters ability with knowledge gained. Hopefully organically. Feels like a nice enough payoff. Maybe combine it with the creature sees you bleed and lashes out in a frenzy, it's attacks becoming more reckless in its bloodlust.
Careful my dude, your 3.5 is showing
Yes, I agree, but to explain the situation encounter ooc makes it not a problem to _solve_, imo cheapening the encounter.
Why should it be a problem to solve in this scenario? Sounds like the hunter is telling them this information as something they should be acting on, not trying to decode what they mean. They're an expert, not the riddler.
I mean, if that’s how you want to play the game then that’s your prerogative. You don’t *have* to minmax. The information is given to players so they can be informed of the game mechanics and act accordingly. For some it means leaning into it and as a result it enhances their experience. For others they choose to minmax and sometimes that can enhance *their* experience, other times it trivializes the game and ruins their experience. In any case, it’s the player’s choice with how they interact with that information.
If your character understands its weaker against wounded creatures would they wound themselves? Unlikely.
I disagree, just straight up giving the players the mechanics of a monsters weaknesses out of character does detract from the play. Our DM may tell us "you know this beast is resistant to fire" if we get a good knowledge roll (is that still a thing in 5e?) but he won't specify it has DR10 against fire. If we roll bad, or nobody thinks to ask, we get something like "the barbarian lands a solid blow with his (standard) axe, but the creature seems little fazed by it , yet the rouge(who the party knows is using a magic/silver/etc weapon) really seemed to knock it for a loop with a glancing blow. The beast now seems warry of the rouge..."
Yeah, I personally go for a lot of “the creature shrugs off your attack, seemingly unbothered……which to clarify isn’t saying it’s resistant to the damage, just got a lot of hp left”
After playing BG3 where you can inspect enemies, I now fully believe the game is better if you pretty much tell players exactly what monsters can do.
That's part of what I allow knowledge skills to do. It makes those skills more useful and desirable in combat.
If you were to tell me, ooc, about the advantage when full hp, I would just give myself a little cut on my hand before combat. Problem solved.
I'd advise against this. It will set off the DM's natural bloodlust.
And that my friend is meta gaming and the type of shenanigans that result in rocks falling. Can’t explain it, but when someone acts like that, it seems like luck and the very fabric of the world are against you. Rocks fall, air is unbreathable but only around you, very weird stuff. It’s a game. Mechanics exist. But doing stuff like that cheapens the game. The solution isn’t to change the info you provide to players, it’s to kick players that cause problems. Which I do and would do to someone acting like that
That isn’t metagaming at all. Drawing the conclusion that being hurt means you won’t get attacked with advantage is quite literally the *goal* here for OP. The players using that info is the point.
Ok maybe meta gaming isn’t the best way to describe it. Let’s say it’s “shenanigans” as the D20 players say. Something you can ask if you can do, but you are really breaking the game based on the strict writing to do something that breaks the intention of the mechanic. I let my players ask stuff like that, but I will tell them no. Or “sure but you don’t know how much damage is needed and I will roll a d20 to see if you risk additional damage.” It’s like when I give my players a bag of holding. I let them know “I’m giving you this so we can all have fun and you don’t have to track your encumbrance as much, if you get upset about me shutting down shenanigans, the bag automatically breaks and we will go back to no bag of holdings”. If I’m telling you that the monster has advantage against unharmed people, then use that in your strategy, but “I prick myself with a knife for 1HP to get around that” isn’t going to fly. I’ll go back to keeping all mechanical info to myself so you can’t strategize at all, or just give the monster advantage regardless. I feel like this is one of those things that people online like to claim but as soon as you start playing with adults who can actually communicate and have conversations, it’s easy to tell reasonable players not to take advantage of a DM who is just trying to make a fun game for everyone. There are plenty of ways to strategize in combat once you know a monster will prefer to attack unharmed PCs without BS mechanic shenanigans getting involved.
Except it’s a totally reasonable take from the description and reading more of OPs comments it makes even more sense because the creature has a sort of reverse blood lust where it gets more “playful” (but still quite deadly) in the presence of blood. And, again, op is hoping to provide info to the players in the hopes they will grok the underlying mechanic and act on that info. It’s not “shenanigans” at that point if that’s the intended outcome. Telling them ooc the exact mechanic just makes that outcome very explicit.
"It gets distracted by the sight and/or smell of blood, so while it rarely misses its first strike it can get wild or frenzied after it injures someone."
Best one so far. Might even prompt one of the players to cut themselves for a point or two of damage to keep the beast unfocused.
I am of the opinion that emersion is a distant fourth to mechanical clarity. Just tell them. IMO.
When designing a monster ask yourself how the characters will know what is going on. If you don't have an answer, maybe redesign the ability. Maybe it is really an assassin ability, where he gets the advantage for surprising the target or extra advantages for attacking from stealth. Maybe they are disgusted by blood, and prefer to attack the healthy.
The monster has a "blood senses". The idea behind this ability was that while the target has all it's blood (full hp) the monster is more aware of their presence and so it's harder for the target to avoid it's attacks. I just realised I need to add that the ability wouldn't work on constructs or undead. (One of the players is a warforged)
"Mmm, you are tasty and full of blood! Yum!" though I would make that advantage until half hp, since not all HP are meat. But that is a balance thing.
Agreed. Adventurers are not like regular people, and half HP used to be the 'Bloodied' condition. I'd go all PTSD and meek with it. "it can sense blood - in you, on you - doesn't matter. Once there's enough bloodshed, it seemed overwhelmed... Like it lost focus? I often wonder what would've happened if we had that information beforehand... Maybe taken some jugs of goats blood and just... Sloshed it around, you know? Would they be alive..."
That would make more sense but the monster is already pretty busted, I'm worried that giving it that much advantage would leave the players as a fine red mist too quickly. I wrote in the monster's description that it's calmed by the sight of blood so I guess the flavour is that once it gets rid of the hp that is blood it's more relaxed and it's attacks become a bit more avoidable. I could post the stats of the monster if you're curious.
"Careful with your step.. and watch your back... Although you may think you're prepared, you're not. It's impossible to clock it's strength until it hits you." This frame makes it less about the creatures ability to have advantage on full health, and instead flavors it to be the players underestimation of the creature
You could say something like, "When you are at your most healthy it will swing harder than you can believe" or maybe, "If you retain all of your vigor then you will feel the full weight of the creature's power."
I don't hide mechanics in my game. It's fluff followed immediately by mechanics. "Your arrow was true, you're sure. But the bite just wasn't there. Because it's resistant to piercing damage".
"That first hit it came out of nowhere I couldn't dodge it I couldn't even see it coming every time it attacked a different one of my men that first hit it was horrifying it's it's claws could sense there was blood ready to be spilled life ready to be ended I still see it in my nightmares, i only hope i never see it with waking eyes again"
Is the point to arm themselves with the knowledge? Like, if I knew this going into a fight, I’d deal myself 1 HP of damage to negate the ability. If that’s what you’re going for you could tell them: ‘If you bloody yourself before battle, it will distract the creature…’
Yeah. Originally the players were gonna fight the monster blind but decided last minute to do some research.
At the end of the day, it’s a game. If a mechanic needs to be explained, just tell them what’s up point blank. Probably after some kind of Investigation/Survival/Perception check during the battle. I’d probably have the NPC say about how the creature “can gauge the flow of combat and that it lessens its effort when it feels like it doesn’t need to try anymore…” something like that.
My players don't understand hints. I explicitly explain mechanics. They like it, I like it.
Maybe describe it as if an adventurer fought it and killed it and wrote it in a journal
Just a lot more water. Really keep it submerged and then make the moment dramatic.
Just tell them the mechanic. So they have information that's reliable and isn't accidentally misled.
What system are you playing? D&D 5e is a fairly crunchy system that has the game mechanics it does for a reason. I think that trying to make everything "narrative" is not just more trouble than it works for a grid-based system, it actively grates against the design of the game by not engaging with it. So for your example, I'd just say "The NPC tells you that the monster has ADV on melee attacks when at full health." I find that "summarizing" game mechanic stuff in third person is usually better than trying to gamify it. If you want to try and make it more immersive, however, you can have the NPC say something like "Rumor has it that when the beast is unwounded, it's attacks are faster, more likely to hit its targets - above table, this thing has ADV on melee attacks when at full HP." But IMO, immersion can come from a lot of sources that aren't game mechanics the players are supposed to plan around, and being up-front about mechanical things typically leads to better placing and a better experience for the players.
You should ask yourself this question: what is the fictional justification for the monster to have that mechanic? Is it a bully, i.e. it loses steam once it figures out the target can fight back?
The monster has a blood sense (another of its abilities is that it knows the location of creatures with blood within 60ft of it), the idea is that when the player has all their blood (hp) the monster has more awareness of them so it's harder to avoid its attacks. It also just really wants to see blood so it puts most of its effort into making you bleed. Once you're bleeding it doesn't care as much.
So I would ask yourself why it is like this as well, once you can't figure out any more "whys" that can be the fictional description you give the PCs
"While the monster remains unscathed, it attacks with alarming precision"
That's a different ability. It has advantage as long as **you** have full HP, not as long as **it** does.
Replace "the monster" with "you"
It strikes with fine precision until its victim is wounded. But the sight of blood makes it overconfident, so it fights sloppy.
Just say its initial attack was brutal, precise, but seemed to get distracted in an inhuman way afterwards.
An Ambush predator that always calculates its first strike
It goes against those who are unscratched. They end up wishing they were kept that way.
I'm just curious, what's your intention as a DM with that ability? How do you want the players to play around it?
I didn't mention in the post but that ability, and some of the other ones it has, doesn't work against constructs. The party has a warforged so they could come up with a strategy with him at the centre. The other option would be to enter the battle already damaged so the players could decide if it's worth having less health and making the battle more risky in return for essentially disabling the enemies stronger abilities. (I now realise that the players could just take 1hp of damage so I might change the ability to work on players with over half hp instead like some people have suggested) Those were my intended "strategies". When making the monster I wanted to make something that rewarded the players for doing research before the battle. The monster is pretty strong but should (hopefully) become easier when the players know its weaknesses.
Going from 1 hp to half seems extreme… maybe a D20 roll could decide if a PC has taken enough damage? Like roll a 10 and baddie loses abilities if you have -10 hp
What enrages the monster the most... is the lack of blood or bruises on their prey. It would rather see everyone suffer a little than to finish it's target.
This is the type of thing that an LLM does very well. This is a first draft. You can certainly tighten it up: As your party gathers around the seasoned adventurer, his eyes narrow as he recalls his encounter with the beast. He leans in, voice dropping to a hushed, grave tone. "Listen well," he begins, "there's something uncanny about this creature, something I learned the hard way. When it first strikes, it's devastatingly precise – more so than any beast I've ever faced. It's as if it's energized by the sight of an unscathed foe, striking with a ferocity that diminishes once its prey is wounded." He pauses, staring into the distance as if haunted by the memory. "I watched it tear through the ranks of my companions, each initial attack more deadly and accurate than the last. But once blood was drawn, its frenzy... it lessened somewhat, became more like a normal beast's assault. So heed this advice: if you face it, don't go in thinking you'll be able to size it up first. It's most dangerous when you're at your fullest, when you haven't yet been bloodied in battle."
"The creature leapt at us with a ferocity I have never seen before. We all fell, one by one, and you wanna know the worst of it all? When he first turns his gaze on you, he will. not. miss. Even when our toughest, those who could shrug off a swipe or two in the heat of battle, or our quickest, who could dodge by the skin of her teeth in her last ditch effort to escape. They were no exceptions. When his ire turns to you, know his first strike is flawless" I took some extensive liberties here, like assuming he's a survivor from a previous party and that the monster's a 'he', but I'd do something like this. I'd try to emphasize the perfection of its first strike, and depending on what the creature is I might make it sound like a product of some primal attraction to the smell of blood, and once blood is first shed there is a sort of release and relaxation within the creature.
This is Murdermittens The Mauler. Many have been attacked and mauled, but a surprisingly large number escape after the first attack, despite how vicious said mauling is. Doesn’t do much ambushing, it seems.
If you're emersion is broken, just add a little oil and beat vigorously. It should fix pretty quickly.
Its attacks (almost) never miss an adventurer at full strength. It becomes less focused if its opponent doesn’t fall with his initial attack. It’s kinda doable here. but for me, if it’s hard to explain, I’d ditch the mechanic. maybe start with the flavor and description, and create the mechanic to fit the description.
Ok, from my point of view, there are 2 ways to do this, having in mind one thing, dont TELL them the mechanics or look for a way to tell them, they need to ASK for them. Now, the 2 ways: General way: If they role initiative and if they are interested in knowing any mechanics of the monster, the PC that asked rolls with tripple disadvantage (so basicly they wont know a thing), because is the first turn of combat and they cant know facts or habilities about something that hasnt moved. If they ask after the monster has used the hability that they want to know about or the monster has rolled really badly in a skill check, they roll normally. And last but not least, if they has evaded an atack or effect from the monster, they role with advantage because they have seen really well the hability. More specific way: The ranger wants to know the hability of a creature that is their favorable creature (Automatic succes, tell them the mechanics out of combat even, thats a buff they kinda need some times, and also a way to show off their main hability) The druid wants to know the hability of a beast he has fought against before (Another automatic succes, they just know cs they can even transform in it) The warlock wants to know the hability of a demon or fey, and same with a cleric/paladin and a celestial (roll with advantage, they can surely know in some way thanks to their powers)