Why would an ancient creature like a Rakshasa not know about a common ability like barbarian rage? I like to play creatures similar to human culture. Humans talk a lot sharing knowledge about the capabilities of their enemies. If you were in a tribe of ancient hunters or fishers, even the common below intelligence hunter or fisher would be full of knowledge about the dangers of the sea or forest including he creatures in it and how to best fish or hunt them. Is it really difficult for you to believe a Rakshasa can assess humanoid enemies merely by looking at them?
D&D 5E DM Help: Tips and Tricks for Monsters In Combat
Why would an ancient creature like a Rakshasa not know about a common ability like barbarian rage? I like to play creatures similar to human culture. Humans talk a lot sharing knowledge about the capabilities of their enemies. If you were in a tribe of ancient hunters or fishers, even the common below intelligence hunter or fisher would be full of knowledge about the dangers of the sea or forest including he creatures in it and how to best fish or hunt them. Is it really difficult for you to believe a Rakshasa can assess humanoid enemies merely by looking at them?
The biggest difference really I've noticed is what happens before the fight, not during. Terrain and preparedness seem to have the biggest influences on a battle, since battles are over quite quickly.
I had my group assault a Drow outpost and then flee for a rest. I decided the Drow would barricade the entrance and fortify their positions using bits of furniture from their dwellings - they have no issue with living spartan.
Being able to shoot from behind full cover, reducing the players ability to close with them and engage, and giving them a bonus on saving throws against AoE effects due to cover turned a "Medium" encounter into something more like "Deadly" in terms of resource consumption.
That's just one example. Basically things like terrain and preparedness has more influence on the difficultly of an encounter IMO that tactics once the battle is joined, although good tactics do help.
The other big factor are numbers of creatures. Even numbers of low level things also have a big impact on fights in this edition. 8 CR2 creatures with 40hp each totals 320 worth of hit points to burn through, which will consume a lot of party resources. And even low level creatures can and will hurt high level creatures. Numbers can slow down encounters a lot though so I recommend pre-rolling a bunch of d20, especially for larger fights where the players have DM controlled allies.
I had my group assault a Drow outpost and then flee for a rest. I decided the Drow would barricade the entrance and fortify their positions using bits of furniture from their dwellings - they have no issue with living spartan.
Being able to shoot from behind full cover, reducing the players ability to close with them and engage, and giving them a bonus on saving throws against AoE effects due to cover turned a "Medium" encounter into something more like "Deadly" in terms of resource consumption.
That's just one example. Basically things like terrain and preparedness has more influence on the difficultly of an encounter IMO that tactics once the battle is joined, although good tactics do help.
The other big factor are numbers of creatures. Even numbers of low level things also have a big impact on fights in this edition. 8 CR2 creatures with 40hp each totals 320 worth of hit points to burn through, which will consume a lot of party resources. And even low level creatures can and will hurt high level creatures. Numbers can slow down encounters a lot though so I recommend pre-rolling a bunch of d20, especially for larger fights where the players have DM controlled allies.
If you want the rakshasa to be real challenge don't let him fight the barbarian. Depending on the exact circumstances, he could congratulate the barbarian on his combat prowess against the guards, who were suspected of being spies for an enemy, and then offer the barbarian a job.
That maintains the rakshasa's secret and his life. It fits the monster better than getting into a combat it probably can't win. And it give Lord Waldemar a chance to send his enemy on a mission that is more than the barbarian can handle, or puts the barbarian into a place Lord Waldemar knows about where assassins can be sent to dispatch Mr. Slashy.
If the barbarian is having nothing to do with that subterfuge, Lord Waldemar should spend his first turn drinking a faux potion (take a swig of from the flask in his pocket to act like he's drinking a potion) and use his Plane Shift to get outta there with his secret identity in tact. The consequences of getting killed are way too big for a rakshasa to willingly get caught in a combat it could avoid.
That's one of the things I do like about this edition. Though I'm finding using low level creatures to burn party resources slows xp progression. A bunch of CR2s can be a tough fight coupled with something stronger, but they provide very little xp to a high level party.
Yeah I don't usually just have low CR stuff by itself (maybe I should edit my post), combat encounters are more exciting and challenging with a mix of high and low.
You are right though. I've ran and played in some hard encounters due to large numbers of creatures that have been worth very little XP wise heh. I know some DM's do XP based on how hard the encounter actually was, which is an interesting concept. My philosophy is though it all comes out in the wash in the end.
Psikerlord#
Explorer
The best tactic is to remove the -5/+10 mechanic, and make Legendary Resistance also give a save when normally there is none. 
pukunui
Legend
What my DM does is have Legendary Resistance use the creature's reaction, so it can only do it once per round.The best tactic is to remove the -5/+10 mechanic, and make Legendary Resistance also give a save when normally there is none.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
I do this too actually. Seems more fair.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
In this case there are reasons why letting the barbarian go will cost him his secret: the reason he's trying to arrest the barbarian is that the barbarian is proposing to go rescue King Andruin who vanished while the PCs were away in wildspace this week. Andruin was last seen leading a party of soldiers to reclaim part of the capital city from the infestation of hobgoblin vampires which the PCs inadvertently (ahem) created, previously. In reality Waldemar tipped the vampires off in hopes they would wipe out Andruin--he's tired of being the power behind the throne given how poorly his last scheme went (hobgoblin army was supposed to capture the capital, not get turned into vampires) and just wants to become the power of the throne.
But, dominating the barbarian doesn't necessarily give away his core secret anyway. All that will be known even by his own men is that he is secretly a wizard. Politically that could be bad (could raise suspicions that he has been manipulating the king with magic) but it's nothing like having it out that he's a Rakshasa, and it's also better than having Mr. Stupid Barbarian possibly rescue King Andruin, possibly before the vampires have been able to finish him off. Andruin would presumably not be pleased to hear how swiftly Waldemar assumed control while he was away--this is the worst possible time for the PCs to start interfering with Waldemar's plans. (And from a metafictional angle, that is by design. I deliberately created a situation where Waldemar would have to act in more obvious ways than subtle ways, because a rule of thumb for RPG mystery-type things is that you should always give the PCs three times as many clues to what's going on as you think they'll need. In this case, they didn't catch on to the "hostile takeover" angle when he refused to pay them full price for their captured ballistas, nor when he confiscated their ship for intra-kingdom trade and refused to be reasonable about how much good they could do for the kingdom with it themselves, but when the barbarian told him he was going to look for King Andruin and Waldemar's response was, "Arrest that man!", a light finally went on in one of my players' heads. "I know what's going on! This is a hostile takeover!" So the rule of three seems to be holding.)
Edit: And this isn't "a combat he cannot win." I estimate a 70-80% chance that the barbarian is going to bite the dust here. 30% chance of failure is high, and it would be nice to bring that down to zero. But from a metafictional perspective, 70% chance of PC death is already about as severe as I have any right to make it. I don't actually want to attack the PCs in the middle of the night with ten assassins, all with drow poison on their weapons, who shoot the PCs unconscious and then tie them up and dump them, restrained, in the ocean. I run a sandbox but it's a sandbox which was constructed as best I could with initial conditions that would set the PCs up for eventual victories, not ignominious and unceremonious defeats. Even if the barbarian wins this fight he will almost certainly be at low HP and cursed by the Rakshasa's claws, and that itself is a pretty severe penalty.
Last edited:
In metagame terminology, raging Barbarians have damage resistance. In metagame terminology, raging Barbarians do extra points of damage.
In Barbarian legend in character, Barbarians attack more savagely and ignore some of the shock of wounds while doing so.
But how does the Rakshasa know that they ignore more wounds than they do more damage? In other words, how would the Rakshasa know that the damage resistance (1/2 damage taken) is greater than the extra damage (+2 or +3 or whatever)? The DM knows this because it is written down as character ability info in the PHB.
If the info was the exact opposite (more damage than protection), how would the Rakshasa know that?
You live in the real world. Which does more damage to a person standing there, normal bullets against no vest, or armor piercing bullets against a bullet proof vest, or even armor piercing bullets against no vest? Unless you actually do tests on it, how would you know? You could guess, but your guess might be wrong.
It sounds to me that some people here on the boards have difficulty distinguishing between metagaming knowledge and in character knowledge. It's sometimes not easy. But knowing that a raging barbarian does more damage is fine. Knowing that a raging barbarian feels less pain while raging, fine. Knowing that one ability is stronger than the other and which it is? Metagaming. IMO.
Similar Threads
