Cation, Information, Paranoia and Preparation(Forked Thread:)

[Hussar]

I agree. But adventuring is dangerous. Going down into a deep dark hole looking for loot, knowing that there are things down there that can kill you with a look, takes a combination of skill and guts. Assuming we are still talking about the kind of D&D that includes exploration, risk and reward, I don't quite understand what would motivate a player to sit down at the table if they weren't willing to accept the possibility of their character dying ignobly at the bottom of a kobold spike pit as much as they were willing to accept the possibility of their character hauling a wagon full of riches out of the dungeon.

The balance between the unknown and how the players engage the dungeon or other adventure setting is far more fun, IMO, than the combat that inevitably ensues.

Oh, of course.

But, now you're straying pretty far from the point I was originally making - how lethal should combat be? There is a huge difference between no chance of character death and killing a PC every three sessions (which is what I averaged in the last campaign - running very close to core, SRD only monsters and allowing the players to play pretty much whatever they wanted.)

Which brings me back to my original point. Without perfect information, there is a significant limitation on how prepared you can be for an encounter. For the most part, most parties are entering many encounters (not all but many) fairly blind. They might know that there are monsters ahead, they are in a dungeon after all, but, they probably don't know the numbers or make-up of individual encounters.

So, beyond basics - scouting, long term buffs - there isn't a whole lot you can do to prepare for encounters. The reason I posted the original quote was I was talking about how lethal 3e combat is. You responded by saying that "smart" parties can reduce that lethality. I argue that, while some reduction is possible, it's not enough. 3e combat is simply too lethal as written, for my tastes.

I've shown that I have no problems whacking a PC. Racking up body count warms the cockles of my heart to tell the truth. But, most players get pretty fed up trying to recreate new character backgrounds every two levels because it's their turn to be turned into kibbles.

I added Action Points into my current campaign specifically to counteract this. I think that's why you never saw action points in 1e or 2e - combat was not that lethal. Monsters could not kill PC's in a single round, by and large, through melee damage. Most monsters would take three or four rounds to start to threaten the PC with melee damage. (Note, I'm talking beyond about 4th or 5th level here) You don't need to reduce lethality. It's already weak enough as is.

3e went too far bumping up the monsters IMO. PC's are going to be doing hundreds of fights during a campaign. The math should work out to a fairly low chance of death per fight, or you're simply going to kill them too often.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Also it depends on how much refluffing the DM does - can you recognise the Bodak'a'like before it uses it's gaze attack?

Sometimes I think Bodaks must be excluded from discussions about deadliness of 3E, because they present the singular worst-case scenario.
Bodaks have a low CR, but thanks to their Save or Die effect, they can be dangerous at higher levels (one bad roll and all, and you can - if using CR and Encounter Guideliens - use them in larger numbers, making that one bad roll more likely). The only defense against them is Death Ward, a single-target spell with a short duration. The alternative is closing your eyes, but that's the kind of thing your scouting Rogue or the party entering a room tends not to do. It is _really_ the absolute worst case scenario.

Or that Age of Worms Dragon that didn't have a breath weapon, and instead dealt 2d6 constitution drain. Did you know that there are no core spells (and possibly even no non-core spells) that take less then a 3 round casting time to fix that? Well, nearly as bad as Bodaks, I suppose.

But there are other, nasty monsters. I remember that our Ranger in Shackled City got killed by a Thunderbeast. I think he lost initiative and then was charged with a critical hit. There was just nothing we could to help him except maybe the entire party trying to fly away (which was a little hard to do for a party whose only arcane spellcaster was a Bard)
And monsters like these exist a lot. There is nothing special you can do to protect yourself from a melee monster. You boost your AC with everything you got, but most of this is expected and required anyway. The only "smart play" is not engaging such a monster at all.

 

[Reynard]

There is nothing special you can do to protect yourself from a melee monster. You boost your AC with everything you got, but most of this is expected and required anyway. The only "smart play" is not engaging such a monster at all.

Or killing it quickly. With fire, if possible.

Seriously, though, some threats have to be faced head on. It is worth the expenditure of high end resources to eliminate such a dangerous opponent as quickly as possible. Luck always plays a role, of course, but so do tactics.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Or killing it quickly. With fire, if possible.

Sure, that was our goal. Still didn't help the Ranger. I don't remember if we all lost initiative, or if we got off some shots, but whatever it was, there was nothing we could have further optimized in our tactics at that point.
(What we could have optimized was the party. 3-man parties without a Cleric or Wizard are always a bad idea...)

 

[Reynard]

But, now you're straying pretty far from the point I was originally making - how lethal should combat be? There is a huge difference between no chance of character death and killing a PC every three sessions (which is what I averaged in the last campaign - running very close to core, SRD only monsters and allowing the players to play pretty much whatever they wanted.)

...

3e combat is simply too lethal as written, for my tastes.

I agree that 3E combat can be lethal. I think we just have different tastes as to the definition of "too lethal". You're right that preparation and tactics can only take you so far, but that lethality, IMO, ehances the game (at least, a certain style of game). It promotes behavior liek careful exploration, smart tactics, a willingness to seek alternative solutions than combat and a general sense of "gritty realism" that I enjoy -- think Jackson's LotR movies without surfing elves. Of course, I understand that not everyone's preference go this way -- there's a few players for whom I can't DM because our tastes are so different, and that's a shame -- but nothing bores me quite as much as excessive numbers of low risk combats.

 

[Reynard]

Sure, that was our goal. Still didn't help the Ranger. I don't remember if we all lost initiative, or if we got off some shots, but whatever it was, there was nothing we could have further optimized in our tactics at that point.
(What we could have optimized was the party. 3-man parties without a Cleric or Wizard are always a bad idea...)

Of course, things will go bad sometimes. Players can do nothing wrong, even do everything right, and characters can still die. But knowing that, they still face down the terrors that inhabit the world. That's why they are heroes, and when they fall, that's why we sing songs of their exploits.

 

[LostSoul]

Ah. This is a definition of fun issue. From the rest of your post it is obvious that as a player you don't find that kind of play fun (to the point of ruining it for the other players if they engage in it) so I can only tell you that some people do.

Maybe. I find it odd that people consider it fun to bicker over simple issues - like opening doors - for at least fifteen minutes, making sure everything's going to be okay when they finally get to it.

I'm not talking about making informed decisions. "We saw all those giant cobwebs down the stairs over there, so that probably means spiders or something like it. That fancy door probably has a trap on it - it lit up like a christmas tree under Detect Magic - but the Rogue was unable to find anything. And that other door with the odd scratching and snorting, like an angry bull penned up - probably a minotaur, but I've been wrong before, and I'm not sure we want to deal with that.

"So what do you want to do?"

That's fun. What's not fun is this:

"This door here - we can't hear anything on the other side, Clairvoyance picked nothing up, Augury did nothing for us. Should we open it?"
<cue party bickering and constant prodding of the DM for more information, which lasts a half-hour, until finally someone opens the door and reveals an empty room>

How do you avoid that? Or do you still think it's not an issue?

 

[Reynard]

How do you avoid that? Or do you still think it's not an issue?

Part of it -- a big part of it, in fact -- is a group play issue. Sitting down with the other players, putting together a Standard Operating Procedure and presenting it the the DM will certainly help. Another issue is the DM himself -- if he's happy to feed the players increasingly irrelevent information for his own amusement, there's a problem right there. It isn't difficult to cue players in to the idea that it is time to move on.

Here's a fun exercise that will show you what kind of players you have. Run them through an empty dungeon. No monsters, no treasure, just a creepy atmosphere and plenty of things with which to interact. Of course, don't tell them its empty. Some groups will get increasingly paranoid, waiting for the other shoe to drop and clausterphobia sets in. Others will dig deep into the scenery, searching every nook and cranny with relish. Some will get bored. Regardless, it is a very educational exercise.

 

[Hussar]

Or killing it quickly. With fire, if possible.

Seriously, though, some threats have to be faced head on. It is worth the expenditure of high end resources to eliminate such a dangerous opponent as quickly as possible. Luck always plays a role, of course, but so do tactics.

How can you kill something quickly enough that is capable of killing PC's in one round?

A rule of thumb is 10xCR for the damage a creature can do in a round. Give or take, but, barring special abilities (particularly save or die) it's true. Most characters do not have 10xlevel in hit points. Most are considerably less.

Out of curiousity thought, what do you consider a decent body count rate? Like I said, 1/3 sessions is way too high for me. I don't mind PC death, but, randomly strewing the campaign with corpses tends to frustrate the heck out of most players.

That's fun. What's not fun is this:

"This door here - we can't hear anything on the other side, Clairvoyance picked nothing up, Augury did nothing for us. Should we open it?"
<cue party bickering and constant prodding of the DM for more information, which lasts a half-hour, until finally someone opens the door and reveals an empty room>

How do you avoid that? Or do you still think it's not an issue?

We handled that with, "You hear an empty room."

 

[Remathilis]

Here is golden rule for monster/info development.

NEVER go more than 5 levels/CR over your PCs level. Ever.

If you are in a level 3 dungeon (foes roughly CR 3 or so) no monster, NPC, or treasure would be over level 8. Period. That gives PCs a chance if they DO bumble into a problem to escape without TPK. No Vrocks in kobold dens, Ancient Dragons ruling goblins, or 20th level liches in crypts otherwise full of ghouls.

If there IS a foe above that magic number, the PCs are almost always warned in the prologue or such. "An ancient dragon lives in the mountains of Sithra, you must negotiate passage with him."

It keeps things fair, and allows the PCs a chance at escape (or clever tactics to victory). Verisimilitude be dammed, I'd rather things be fair.