High AC and encounters

[UngeheuerLich]

It actually landed a few hits but I see the math error. Frankly I would have done better with one shover and one helper to grant advantage that to the other 4 or as u say just roll six attacks if identical.

While it is usually a waste to grant advantage by the means of the help action, it is useful to negate disadvantage.

Say your normal chance to hit is 20%, your chance to hit falls down to 4% on disadvantage.
If I am not mistaken, 3 attacks at 20% are better than 6 attacks at 4%.

 

[Warpiglet]

While it is usually a waste to grant advantage by the means of the help action, it is useful to negate disadvantage.

Say your normal chance to hit is 20%, your chance to hit falls down to 4% on disadvantage.
If I am not mistaken, 3 attacks at 20% are better than 6 attacks at 4%.

Well, in fairness. the high AC guy was dodging a lot and I was trying to negate that. (I was not clear about that earlier). However, I think I let that continue on a few rounds when he was not (DM autopilot/beers). Lesson learned!

But point well taken and reinforces what I need to remember for sure!

 

[Warpiglet]

Why would you do such a thing!

Seriously though, it is completely disadvantageous for 3 of the goblins to give advantage to the identical 3 statblocks next to them, rather than just all 6 attacking without advantage (I'm assuming identical statblocks).

Unless those were intended as ways of making it easier on the PC without a less experienced player picking up on it.

Two identical actions without advantage are always superior to one of the exact same action with advantage.

I did not mention but was reminded: there were rounds where he was also dodging and I think that may have planted to idea. However, I did it a few other rounds too so I am not totally off the hook.

Which brings up another issue. If someone is dancing around and deflecting blows, I think intelligent creatures could leave a foe or two to challenge and check him while the others surmise he is stalling and wasting time (i.e. and reallocate to other more 'active' foes).

Playing intelligent monsters means things like this. I might make a sheet prompting me to change tactics for days when I am sort of mentally slow. or beered up. but you get the idea.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Most important thing:
Everyone should have fun.
So it is not important to always use the best way to deal damage. Monsters are not always geniuses and will usually use try and error methods. So good preperations is often overrated or actually wrong. Most enemies face PCs for the first time so only in few cases enemies should come well prepared and often those fights are against boss type monsters which you would prepare anyway.

 

[Oofta]

Most important thing:
Everyone should have fun.
So it is not important to always use the best way to deal damage. Monsters are not always geniuses and will usually use try and error methods. So good preperations is often overrated or actually wrong. Most enemies face PCs for the first time so only in few cases enemies should come well prepared and often those fights are against boss type monsters which you would prepare anyway.

Well, let's say you're in the (modern day) army. You see two enemies in front of you. One is wearing heavy body armor, crouching to make a smaller target, has a pistol but isn't shooting anyone. The other guy has no body armor, is standing out in the open and has an RPG pointed at you.

Which enemy do you target first? It shouldn't take a tactical genius to realize which one of the two is the greater imminent threat.

I don't go out of my way to reward or punish character builds, I do what makes sense for the monster. An ogre may walk up to the heavily armored guy and futilely bash away because they are incredibly stupid. Of course they may also decide to pick up the guy and see if they can breath under water when hitting isn't working because they're strong and tired of bashing at something that doesn't make pretty blood spurt everywhere.

I know DMs make concessions to convention and assumptions all the time, but at the same time IMHO it's more important to run monsters logically than to metagame.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

We had an encounter occur in the middle of the night as the PCs were staying the night at a shady tavern in a port city. A ruckus in the hallway woke them and as they went to investigate, they realized it wasn't a dispute between two thugs, but a ruse to catch them in an ambush. More gang members poured in the windows and out from other guest rooms and the fight was on... with not one PC in their armor, since they had just settled down for a long rest. The PCs each had smartly grabbed a weapon before investigating the ruckus so it turned into a good fight but with lower ACs for the heroes.

Use sparingly...

 

[Warpiglet]

We had an encounter occur in the middle of the night as the PCs were staying the night at a shady tavern in a port city. A ruckus in the hallway woke them and as they went to investigate, they realized it wasn't a dispute between two thugs, but a ruse to catch them in an ambush. More gang members poured in the windows and out from other guest rooms and the fight was on... with not one PC in their armor, since they had just settled down for a long rest. The PCs each had smartly grabbed a weapon before investigating the ruckus so it turned into a good fight but with lower ACs for the heroes.

Use sparingly...

I like it. I will use it...sparingly. at least a time or two though, right?

I do not want to nerf everyone. the fun in playing is often being heroic and successful afterall. but for a change and a challenge, it is a damn fine idea.

 

[jgsugden]

I agree that could be frustrating. I don't feel I owe anything to the players to pay off their investments. They have invested in an opportunity, not a right. It's on them in my view to do the things to maximize the payoff on that opportunity via their choices in the game.

D&D is an RPG. A role playing game. The DM and the players come together to tell a good story utilizing the rules and their imagination. What is the DM's role? To me, it is to create an immersive world in which the heroes can explore, adventure and be heroes (usually). It is not to beat the players. The DM is not playing *against* the players, they are *creating for* the players. To that end, we should, as DMs, support player decisions.

You're making the world in which they adventure, but it is important to remember that the world exists for the PCs to explore and have experiences within... not for the DM. It is not the DM's world, it is the player's world.

I'm not going to have monsters swing and miss the heavily-armored cleric just because the cleric's player took a feat and some armor - but I will if the cleric has made it so that's my only viable choice.

Let's look at this statement for a minute. You're making choices as DM, but are you making YOUR choices? Or are you trying to select what monsters and NPCs would choose?

When I'm DMing, I try to put myself into the shoes of the monster or PCs. Am I starving wolf? Am I an arrogant orc? Am I a demon that revels in pain and torture? Am I an automaton? Am I a rogue more concerned with getting away with the money than killing my foe? Am I a just paladin that would rather not kill heroes, but must stop them? Every encounter is different. Every potential foe has different motivation.

As a player, I've found games that are run the same way I DM. This gives me great opportunities as a player. My Deep Gnome Wizard casts Phantasmal Force *a lot*. The DM has been really good at allowing the monster to role play off of what I create. I've led enemies to abandon the fight in favor of treasure. I've made enemies flee the battle because they faced off against a Phantasm of what they most feared. I've had enemies leap off cliffs to their death because they thought there was a bridge... and I've had my phantasms backfire because the monster did not react as expected. All of it added to a great story... but all of it felt like cooperation between me and the DM to tell a great story. It never felt like the DM saying, "It is on you to find something I can't twist against you."

 

[iserith]

D&D is an RPG. A role playing game. The DM and the players come together to tell a good story utilizing the rules and their imagination. What is the DM's role? To me, it is to create an immersive world in which the heroes can explore, adventure and be heroes (usually). It is not to beat the players. The DM is not playing *against* the players, they are *creating for* the players. To that end, we should, as DMs, support player decisions.

You're making the world in which they adventure, but it is important to remember that the world exists for the PCs to explore and have experiences within... not for the DM. It is not the DM's world, it is the player's world.

Is setting up difficult challenges "playing against the player?" Am I not "creating for" the players when I present challenges of the difficulty level they prefer? I don't really know what you mean by "support(ing) player decisions." But have I said anything that would lead you to believe I don't support them?

Let's look at this statement for a minute. You're making choices as DM, but are you making YOUR choices? Or are you trying to select what monsters and NPCs would choose?

When I'm DMing, I try to put myself into the shoes of the monster or PCs. Am I starving wolf? Am I an arrogant orc? Am I a demon that revels in pain and torture? Am I an automaton? Am I a rogue more concerned with getting away with the money than killing my foe? Am I a just paladin that would rather not kill heroes, but must stop them? Every encounter is different. Every potential foe has different motivation.

As a player, I've found games that are run the same way I DM. This gives me great opportunities as a player. My Deep Gnome Wizard casts Phantasmal Force *a lot*. The DM has been really good at allowing the monster to role play off of what I create. I've led enemies to abandon the fight in favor of treasure. I've made enemies flee the battle because they faced off against a Phantasm of what they most feared. I've had enemies leap off cliffs to their death because they thought there was a bridge... and I've had my phantasms backfire because the monster did not react as expected. All of it added to a great story... but all of it felt like cooperation between me and the DM to tell a great story. It never felt like the DM saying, "It is on you to find something I can't twist against you."

I think by definition choices I make are my choices. And again, I refer to you previous posts in which I address the issue of "what monsters and NPCs would choose." They choose whatever I make them choose because they are under my complete control. And if I want to have them do a thing that maintains a certain level of difficulty, overcoming which gives a great sense of achievement to the players, then I can easily make up an acceptable fictional reason for why they do that. Fiction is great that way.

 

[jgsugden]

Is setting up difficult challenges "playing against the player?"

Typically, yes, especially if you consider the abilities of the PCs before the storyline when creating the challenges.

When I create a game, I come up with story first. If there is a lich that has a MacGuffin, I ask where he got it, why he has it, and what he intends to do with it. Then I ask if he'd want to protect it. If so, what resources might he have to protect it. I craft that story, adding story elements and challenges to the tale and ONLY consider the PCs if the monster would consider those PCs. If the lich knows the PCs are coming and has time to prepare for it, he'll tailor the defenses to them. If not, I don't factor in their abilities at all (subject to the slight cheat that if they have abilities that are likely to bypass his defenses, I don't flesh out those defenses too much.

How do the PCs fit into this planning? Often, I use the goals or focuses of the party as inspiration for where to begin this construction. If the PC wizard has a goal to obtain the Staff of the Magi, I figure out where that staff is ASAP and then create a path to it - but the challenges along the way are not tailored to that PC (or the party in general. The PCs inspire, but they are not part of the calculations and machinations.

Am I not "creating for" the players when I present challenges of the difficulty level they prefer?

Not in the way I mean it. You're setting up a strategy game, but not really creating a deep world for their adventuring pleasure. You're focused on strategy over story.

Might I suggest an exercise: Try building a session worth of encounters that is fun for your group, but where no encounter is more than "medium" difficulty per the DMG standards. How can you challenge PCs without threatening their lives? I've faced a lot of serious challenges in my (real world life), but my life has only been in jeopardy a couple times.

I don't really know what you mean by "support(ing) player decisions."

I mean looking at what your players are trying to do and allowing them to have success where they put in the focus. Notice: I did not say you were tailoring the game to their strengths... I said allowing them to have success. That means not gaming against their strengths, but instead creating fun encounters agnostic to their strengths and weaknesses (unless there is a story reason why an encounter would be tailored to their abilities) so that they can use the strengths they invested in obtaining.

But have I said anything that would lead you to believe I don't support them?

I do see something in your language. That is why I focused on your language in the prior post. You're apparently not seeing it the same way, however.Often, setting up difficult challenges for the PCs is playing against them. "Setting up" heavily implies you are looking at their abilities and trying to play against them. You don't need to do this to create a fun game and doing it diminishes the player choices by negating what they want to do. See my prior statements for more on this idea.

I think by definition choices I make are my choices.

To an extent, clearly. But what else are they?

And again, I refer to you previous posts in which I address the issue of "what monsters and NPCs would choose." They choose whatever I make them choose because they are under my complete control. And if I want to have them do a thing that maintains a certain level of difficulty, overcoming which gives a great sense of achievement to the players, then I can easily make up an acceptable fictional reason for why they do that. Fiction is great that way.

This is the crux: Does the story influence the strategy, or the strategy influence the story? Which is better? Is it s ROLE PLAYING game or a role playing GAME.

If you go with the rpG, you're making a mistake. Why? Because there are a lot of better games out there for pure strategic fun. Boradgamegeek can point you to thousands of hours of amazing games. I can give you a lot of suggestions, too - including Gloomhaven. If you have not checked it out, you should.

If you go with RPg, then you don't want to be justifying your monster decisions so that they can make choices that are harder for the PCs. You want the story to guide the strategy. You want the monsters to (often) make suboptimal combat decisions because it is more interesting for them to be serving their non-combat/opposing goals, or because they just don't have the mental capacity to make the optimal choice.

Think about it this way: A lot of people really love published adventures. Why? They're not tailored to the PCs. The challenges in them are written with no concern to the actual party that will undertake the adventure.

When people talk about playing Castle Ravenloft, the idea of a Dragonborn Wild Sorcerer Hermit is not the first thing that leaps to my mind. The challenges of the adventure are not crafted to that PC type...

...but that is what makes it fun for that PC to venture into that adventure. They bring something... unexpected? ... to the game. The bad guys are not prepared for her unique capabilities. That tells a great story.

We don't need to metagame - and that is the right word (making choices based upon their game statistics rather than based upon the story) - against the PCs to make a good game, and metagaming against them often frustrates them.

YMMV. You may play at a table where the PCs really just care about strategy games and want you to focus only on what would be a good challenge at the table. They may tune out the second combat ends and tune back in only when combat begins, asking, "So what are we fighting? I missed everything the DM said in the last 30 minutes... there was a Giggazorasaurus nearby and I was trying to catch it with my Pokeballs because I just got a bunch of dust." If so, you can continue focusing on being their opposition and maintain the status quo... but I encourage you to try my way with them for a few weeks. You might find that they tune out less in the time between combats and that you're all having even more fun. I've seen this turn in many groups over the decades... I speak from experience. Just trying to help. Hopefully, food for thought.