D&D 5E Anticlimactic Boss Fights

[Tonguez]

I’d have used the Beholders extra eye lair action to introduce an anti-magic eye because chaos Magic!

unfortunately though Beholders and Tyrants arent combat optimised despite their impressive stats. Only 3 of their eye rays cause direct dmage and making them random is a nerf that makes it hard to use good tactics. Beholders need to be stealthy and use their superior intelligence (which I consider as permission for DMs to bend the rules on the fly)

personally though I’ve gone from focussing on boss monsters to using the whole Lair, sometimes without the monster even appearing. Eg because Beholders hover, I’d keep the Tyrant hidden up amongst the stalactites at 130 ft, so too high for the PCs to hit with sniping spells. Their center eye has a 150ft range and the eye rays are 120.

Lairs have 3 dimensions to work with, verticle shafts, platforms, ledges and pits all mean the PCs need to use resources to climb, jump or fly themselves. Then theres the slimey difficult terrain, glowing spectral eyes (50 ft range from the hiding Tryrant), disintegration rays to drop stalactites from above, and slimey appendages reaching out from the walls.

The PCs will be harrassed by zombie minions, glaring eyeballs, appendages from the walls and glowing lights shooting beams and may never get to see the giant skull dominating the room high above them

 

[Starfox]

To be honest, it sounds like you had a fun session. Anticlimax in RPGs is much more tolerable, even satisfying, than it is in most other media. What IS a problem is if this happens every time.

 

[Flamestrike]

Thanks. Now I am relieved. I thought I was going to be punished by WotC Ninjas.

My only concern is if you handwave away 'target a creature you can see' for the beholder, then your PCs are going to want the same treatment in return.

Here is a list of spells with that targeting restriction:

Spells that require sight:

In addition, attacks of opportunity, the Dodge action and tons of monster and PC special abilities require a 'target you can see'.

That's why there are more elegant solutions for mine. Having the Death Tyrant use its TK ray to grab a pillar and toss it at a PC works just fine.

DC 17 Dex save (same as the eye ray DC) for 35 (10d6) bludgeoning damage (on par with its other ray damage) and be pushed 20' away, save for half (and no push). Targets one random PC in the darkness.

Give them disadvantage on the Dex save if they can't see the Beholder (via Devils sight).

It could also disintegrate the roof above them, causing it to become unstable and rubble to fall on the PC's, dealing 21 (6d6) bludgeoning damage, Dex save DC 17 for half damage, targets everyone in a 20 x 20 space.

Those damage figures are on par with it's eye ray damage, and the saves are the same. It's also thematically appropriate, and it doesnt lead to the PCs crying foul. In addition, there is still a benefit to the PCs (in that they're only taking damage, and not being subject to the other ray effects).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Have you got a similar story where the PCs happen to stumble on a boss monster’s weakness that turns what should be a deadly encounter into a triviality? And how did you deal with it?

Yes. The players succeeded, turning what would have been a difficult challenge into an almost instant victory. Despite not being dramatic, it was still a major moment in the game--because the players knew that being observant, clever, and strategic actually mattered. That I would not take a victory away from them just because they figured out a solution I'd failed to account for. This simultaneously made them more willing to try creative things (because they knew a really effective creative thing would not be shut down even if it was "too good"), and made my players trust and respect that when I build things, I really am trying to make them awesome and exciting, even if that doesn't always happen.

So, while there was the tiniest bit of momentary letdown, in truth this was very, very good for the game overall. It's part of why I take such a dim view of techniques that, overtly or covertly, seek to prevent this from ever being allowed to happen.

Sometimes, believe it or not, an anticlimax is actually better for the game than a climax would be. Certainly not always. But the occasional anticlimax, especially one that arises from characters making effective choices or bringing just the right tool for the job, is actually a powerful demonstration of the GM's commitment to fair play and honest evaluation of the fictional space.

 

[pukunui]

Yes. The players succeeded, turning what would have been a difficult challenge into an almost instant victory. Despite not being dramatic, it was still a major moment in the game--because the players knew that being observant, clever, and strategic actually mattered. That I would not take a victory away from them just because they figured out a solution I'd failed to account for. This simultaneously made them more willing to try creative things (because they knew a really effective creative thing would not be shut down even if it was "too good"), and made my players trust and respect that when I build things, I really am trying to make them awesome and exciting, even if that doesn't always happen.

So, while there was the tiniest bit of momentary letdown, in truth this was very, very good for the game overall. It's part of why I take such a dim view of techniques that, overtly or covertly, seek to prevent this from ever being allowed to happen.

Sometimes, believe it or not, an anticlimax is actually better for the game than a climax would be. Certainly not always. But the occasional anticlimax, especially one that arises from characters making effective choices or bringing just the right tool for the job, is actually a powerful demonstration of the GM's commitment to fair play and honest evaluation of the fictional space.

Normally I would just roll with it, but Halaster doesn’t play fair.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My only concern is if you handwave away 'target a creature you can see' for the beholder, then your PCs are going to want the same treatment in return.

I don't disagree here.

And I am sometimes more lenient in those cases too. If firing blindly makes sense (ray spells) I have a hard time saying no to my players if they try to fire blindly.

This is me coming from 3e where those spells were usually ranged touch attacks and now often are save spells.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Normally I would just roll with it, but Halaster doesn’t play fair.

Halaster shouldn't, but you as GM should. That is key.

If the party simply brought the big guns for a specific fight, then that's what happened. If Halaster is throwing extra stuff into this battle, then that should matter: he is weakening his forces elsewhere in an attempt to prevent a loss here. Since that failed, it should make the players' lives easier in another battle, where whatever Halaster sent here now cannot fight because it's dead/destroyed/captured/whatever.

The problem with your "god-like antagonistic NPC" is not the capacity to send reinforcements. That's something anyone can do. The problem is sending reinforcements which only exist because the PCs are doing well. Nobody, not even a "god-like" antagonist, should be able to spontaneously create more reinforcements simply because their opponent is doing well right now.

So, did Halaster actually have to deplete his forces, take a risk, call in a favor he would have liked to have for later, etc.?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Doesn't matter. D&D is not a Marvel movie.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Halaster shouldn't, but you as GM should. That is key.

This brings us to a side issue: How does the DM run characters who are considerably more intelligent than they are?

Well, if you look at literature, with Sherlock Holmes being the prime example, the answer is, you cheat. Holmes has access to the author's meta-knowledge. Doyle then works backwards to explain how Holmes is able to tell a character's entire life history by studying their pocket watch. He doesn't need to do this every time either. Once he has demonstrated Holmes' remarkable powers on a couple of times on trivial examples, the reader is willing to unquestioningly accept the character's meta knowledge. Many other authors, such as Timothy Zahn (Thrawn), use the same trick. But to the Agatha Christie school of detective fiction this is cheating. All the clues have to be present in the text so that the perceptive reader can solve it before the detective. But I suspect Christie was smarter than Doyle.

So when it comes to D&D, is it okay for the DM to to this? I will provide the definitive answer: maybe. Another question: is the DM omniscient? If the answer is no, then possibly a villain may have resources and contingences that not even the DM knows about until they pull them out to foil the PCs.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This brings us to a side issue: How does the DM run characters who are considerably more intelligent than they are?

By exploiting the key thing they have, which the character does not have: Unlimited time. Or nearly so.

Well, if you look at literature, with Sherlock Holmes being the prime example, the answer is, you cheat. Holmes has access to the author's meta-knowledge. Doyle then works backwards to explain how Holmes is able to tell a character's entire life history by studying their pocket watch. He doesn't need to do this every time either. Once he has demonstrated Holmes' remarkable powers on a couple of times on trivial examples, the reader is willing to unquestioningly accept the character's meta knowledge. Many other authors, such as Timothy Zahn (Thrawn), use the same trick. But to the Agatha Christie school of detective fiction this is cheating. All the clues have to be present in the text so that the perceptive reader can solve it before the detective. But I suspect Christie was smarter than Doyle.

Perhaps. Perhaps it was just that the genre had been around longer--after all, she wrote The Mysterious Affair at Styles in 1916, while Doyle wrote A Study in Scarlet in 1887. A lot can happen in three decades. Doyle wasn't a total pioneer, but he was one of the early highly successful mystery authors in English.

So when it comes to D&D, is it okay for the DM to to this? I will provide the definitive answer: maybe. Another question: is the DM omniscient? If the answer is no, then possibly a villain may have resources and contingences that not even the DM knows about until they pull them out to foil the PCs.

I think that "cheating" in this way--working backwards from a destination to the start--is acceptable if used very sparingly, but its use should be avoided if at all possible. Instead, exploit the fact that you have months or even years to think through things that, within the narrative of the story, may only get days or even hours of thought. A large portion of "intelligence" is insight, and it's a lot easier to have insight on something when you've spent a thousand hours studying it instead of one hour.

There are other things you can do though:
1. Recruit outside help. Two brains are in fact smarter together than each individually, because what is familiar or gets unnoticed by one may be caught by the other. I confer with other people whose judgment, taste, and discretion I trust.
2. Consult the great masters. Sun Tzu wrote a wonderful book about strategy. It's celebrated by military academies today, two millennia later, for very good reason. Mysteries, historical fiction, actual histories talking about great military commanders or diplomats or statesmen, etc. Long as you vet before you read, you really can't go wrong by reading more books.
3. Listen to your players. Because the only other people who can personally comment on your game are your players--and sometimes, their ideas are fiendishly clever.
4. Keep notes, especially ones that help you learn from your mistakes. Because portraying an intelligent person is often a matter of showing them making correct decisions without making any mistakes first (or correcting their mistakes very rapidly.)

So, yeah. TL;DR: Mimic "fast processor" by using "slow processor for longer time." Mimic "perceptive and thorough" by using "lots of outside help." Mimic "know/remember tons of stuff" by "do research and read more." Mimic "fiendish cleverness" by using "steal ideas from your players." Mimic "make few mistakes, and correct those mistakes quickly" by using "make lots of mistakes, but document them so they don't happen again."

Most of the difference between a highly intelligent person and a typical person is just speed, memory capacity, and forethought. The only parts of intelligence you cannot mimic like this are creativity and (to use a TVTropes term) "Xanatos Speed Chess," where you dynamically modify The Plan proverbially "on camera." Creativity, intuition, and flexibility are just things you have to learn, or accept that you can't really do those parts, so you probably want to run intelligent villains who don't have those traits (perhaps as a significant weakness!)