How to make 'being surrounded by enemy crossbowmen' deadlier?

[shilsen]

One of the issues is that I want them to at least roleplay it as being deadly.

Why do you want them to roleplay it as being deadly if it isn't actually deadly?

Conan must be a pretty high level barbarian (lots of HP). When the king's men burst in on him at the tavern with loaded crossbows pointed at him, he takes them seriously. He doesn't sit there, do the mental math, and say "No way you mooks can do me any serious damage before I kill you all! Now sod off and leave me to my ale.".

Conan is by no stretch of the imagination really high level by D&D standards, considering what he's capable of, not to mention that he's a fictional character who's not actually in a D&D game. So the rules by which he works (i.e. he can do whatever the author wants and that's it) do't really apply here.

Unfortunately realism often has to take a backseat to RAW in the worlds of D&D...

Unfortunately many people miss that the RAW is realism in the worlds of D&D (unless house-ruled by the DM, of course). It would be silly to play D&D by the RAW and complain that giant flying lizards breathing fire are unrealistic, because we know that the reality of the D&D world allows their existence even though they couldn't exist in our reality. Similarly, the rules of the D&D world allow the existence of 10th lvl PCs, which are also something that couldn't exist in our reality.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Twelve crossbowmen have their deadly weapons trained on the hearts of the PCs.

Things seem tense. Then, out of game, one player says "wait, dude, crossbows are barely going to hurt us. We're tenth level."

This is the point at which role playing / storytelling within the D&D system breaks down. The players have too much knowledge of how sturdy they are. It is impossible to create or sustain tension by imposing danger on a player of a game when the player knows for a fact that he can 'win' the ensuing conflict. Video games handle this by having cut scenes and taking control out of the hands of the player. That kind of solution does not work out so well in D&D. To put it bluntly, a player will always succeed his saving throw vs Fiction..

Now, there are ways within the rules to make this much more deadly.

1) Use poison on the crossbow bolts.
2) Grant the crossbow users a free surprise round with the players flatfooted.
3) Use Rogues with a level appropriate amount of sneak attack dice.
4) Use Rapid Shot feat and Bows (or use Rapid Shot + Rapid Reload for crossbows)

Lets assume a group of 5th level Rogues. Using 12 of them should be a hard, but not entirely unreasonable encounter for 10th level characters. You will go from having 12 attacks that can inflict 1d8 damage to having 24 attacks that can do 1d8+3d6+Poison Damage.

Now, pulling this out on your players 'cold', with no indication that these Crossbow men are not your run of the mill cannon fodder is probably overkill. The surprise round will almost certainly drop the low AC party members. Assuming your bowmen stay mobile, they can probably take down those who are left standing. I would therefore make a point of having this as a capture ambush and not a kill ambush, and use a Con based poison. But I would also make a point of using hit and run.. Exchange shots for 2 or 3 rounds, flee, and repeat.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Darklone]

Seconded: If you want the players to act threatened, threaten them.

You have enough examples here how to really give your players troubled times with a bunch of level 3-5 chars. Try it.

I love it.

 

[green slime]

1. Part of the thrill of DnD, is the ability to ignore mooks. They're heroes. It is a game of heroism, not tiddlywinks.

2. Secondly, Players who are concerned about character death, should perhaps go and play monopoly? I like a game that encourages daring play. Too many players are too careful, conservative, and wary. No wonder they only play at adventure.

3. High level characters are lucky.

4. There are lucky people in real life. Some people get up in the morning, cut themselves shaving, and die from blood poisoning. They aren't the lucky ones. Its the adventursome, lucky ones that make for stories worth reading. They are the sources of inspiration for stories, movies, games, and other people's lives.

Read any collection of stories about people who survived a war. In them, you'll always find incredible stories of endurance, survival, and basic dumb luck that make facing off twelve armed xbowmen of low level at 10 paces seem like a walk in the park.

 

[Slaved]

A simple extra rule can turn any battle into a potential character death. That simple rule is using exploding dice. This means that whenever a die rolls some number, usually the maximum value, it is rolled again and added to the total with further explosions being possible.

Not all weapons have to be this deadly though and some can explode on extra numbers as well. If those crossbows all rolled eight sided dice and exploded on an 8 then it is possible for any given character to die to a single bolt.

The chance is not very high but for some people it simply being a possibility is all it takes to produce extra caution.

You could even add on some rule about making the exploding range larger based on how much over the targets armor class the attack roll was or something similar. Power attack could be modified to instead change this number instead of what it currently does.

 

[Gaiden]

It sounds like the major issue your having is suspension of disbelief issues. For this litmus test conditions need to accomodate the existance of magic. Let's think of any movie that involves the middle ages and the use of crossbows. Take First Knight for example. Now add in magic to the mix. Your group of mooks now will include probably a caster or two. Compare your crossbow wielder ambush to include a rogue or two with good skills in UMD, or maybe they have a ranger or druid in their employ.

Think of the difference it would make, if the PC's have an entangle cast on them and the crossbow wielders are far enough outside the AoE to not be threatened. Imagine that all 12 crossbow wielders, like the PC's would operate, focus all of their attacks on one target instead of divided amongst the group. Imagine the crossbow wielders all have even just 1 level of rogue. Add in an artificer or cleric to their mix to cast spells on their bolts to make them enhanced with either numerical or magical effect bonuses.

If I was running the encounter, -well first, my PC's would know not to take 12 opponents whom have ambushed them lightly, no matter what their level is - but back to the point, I would prepare as follows:

I would assume that whomever was trying to detain them would know something about them (unless this group was just out to test what their skill level was). Therefore, I would assess that the mastermind behind this ambush would know he/she was dealing with a 10th level party. Therefore he would send/hire at least 1 appropriately matched individual with a variety of underlings.

Let's assume a 10th level marshal was hired.

So the marshal gathers up the mooks (assume 1st through 3rd level). I'd give him special access and say that these warriors each had 1 level of rogue on them. Then I'd give him a maxed out UMD (with the appropriate feat), a spellcasting cohort, or a rogue cohort to make sure he could get spells like: blessed aim, recitation, chained magic weapon, etc.

It really would not be unreasonable to have mooks with a to hit bonus of +14 after stacking all the spells and marshal effects.

Combined with an entangle (or worse spiked growth) and a few slow spells, the PC's would be in a bit of a pickle - especially if everyone focused on one PC at a time. You're looking at a potential of 24d6+12d8 damage (12d6 from SA, and 12d6 from weapon enhancement) in round 1 to one target at an effective +16 to hit (vs. their normal surprised AC).

Even if your PCs were metagaming, I would have metagamed along this line of reasoning and realized that yes, even at 10th level, mooks with crossbows can still be quite dangerous. Its just a matter of you as the DM using the rules to your advantage. Suggesting just carte blanche to override the rules in this case will just piss off your players and for no good reason - you can easily add back reality to the threat that even low level characters offer.

The other thing you can do, unrelated to tailored ambushes is add in critical hit charts. This means that when opponents critical, it is far more devastating than just the occassional 2x damage. Now they have to worry about losing limbs, permanent hindrances like losing an eye, or being killed outright. That would certainly make me more cautious.

 

[Thurbane]

Conan is by no stretch of the imagination really high level by D&D standards, considering what he's capable of, not to mention that he's a fictional character who's not actually in a D&D game. So the rules by which he works (i.e. he can do whatever the author wants and that's it) do't really apply here.

Are we talking "movie Conan" or "novel Conan"? Maybe even "comic book Conan"? In whichever incarnation we are talking, he is certainly high enough level, in D&D terms, not to be too threatened by a bunch of - presumably low level - city guards with crossbows...but since he apparently is simulataneously a fictional fantasy character and beyond the scope of D&D, that's neither here nor there. Also, I must protest - you have shattered my illusion that Conan was a real personage. Shame on you!

Unfortunately many people miss that the RAW is realism in the worlds of D&D (unless house-ruled by the DM, of course). It would be silly to play D&D by the RAW and complain that giant flying lizards breathing fire are unrealistic, because we know that the reality of the D&D world allows their existence even though they couldn't exist in our reality. Similarly, the rules of the D&D world allow the existence of 10th lvl PCs, which are also something that couldn't exist in our reality.

Also unfortunately, people often miss "tongue in cheek" posts unless there is a smiley at the end of every line.

As for "realism vs. RAW", I've seen it debated many times, and have no real interest in rehashing. I have absolutely no problem with the internal logic of D&D - it is heroic fantasy, after all. Also, if people wish to inject more of the "real world" into combat through houserules, I also have no problem. Strangely enough, I'm often on the "other side" of the argument with one of the guys I game with, who is fine with someone mumbling a few words and shooting lightning from his fingers, but thinks it's horribly unrealistic for someone to wield two weapons effectively at the same time.

 

[shilsen]

Are we talking "movie Conan" or "novel Conan"? Maybe even "comic book Conan"?

When I refer to the character I generally refer to "novel Conan" or, more precisely (let me keep being pedantic here), "short story Conan."

In whichever incarnation we are talking, he is certainly high enough level, in D&D terms, not to be too threatened by a bunch of - presumably low level - city guards with crossbows...but since he apparently is simulataneously a fictional fantasy character and beyond the scope of D&D, that's neither here nor there. Also, I must protest - you have shattered my illusion that Conan was a real personage. Shame on you!

You should see the broken hearts of the people whom I've informed that the Fellowship of the Ring were neither real nor D&D characters. Yeah, I'm a heartless bastard!

Also unfortunately, people often miss "tongue in cheek" posts unless there is a smiley at the end of every line.

Well, tone is often hard to pick up on messageboard posts, and I didn't see anything in yours which said it was tongue in cheek. My mistake.

As for "realism vs. RAW", I've seen it debated many times, and have no real interest in rehashing. I have absolutely no problem with the internal logic of D&D - it is heroic fantasy, after all. Also, if people wish to inject more of the "real world" into combat through houserules, I also have no problem.

Same here. I do recommend, of course, that when people try to inject real world flavor in combat (or elsewhere) they think it through and make enough changes. I find a single or limited change usually just leads to a lack of internal consistency, as one element in the game is more like the real world but everything else is not.

Strangely enough, I'm often on the "other side" of the argument with one of the guys I game with, who is fine with someone mumbling a few words and shooting lightning from his fingers, but thinks it's horribly unrealistic for someone to wield two weapons effectively at the same time.

Hey, you met him too!

 

[Thurbane]

Hey Shilsen, no hard feelings I hope. I was in a grouchy mood at work when I posted my above reply.

 

[Switchblade]

Strangely enough, I'm often on the "other side" of the argument with one of the guys I game with, who is fine with someone mumbling a few words and shooting lightning from his fingers, but thinks it's horribly unrealistic for someone to wield two weapons effectively at the same time.

G'ah, he thinks magic is more realistic than fighting ambi?

If anything the penaties are unrealistically harsh. Try it some time. Someone with 2 swords who doesn't know what they were doing is a match for someone with one sword who does. (Unlike DnD most people find it easier to fight with a pair with the same length, 2 longswords is easier than one longsword and one short as the short sword can only be used to block as it doesn't get close enought). It gives you more options to block and parry and if they block one they've probably left themselves open to the other one.

I do prefere the ars magica approach to paired weapons though, it doesn't get you extra attacks, just improves your attack and defence nicely