dnd 3.5 - Challenge my party.

[thecasualoblivion]

stuff

I'm going to defend you a little bit here. What you said wasn't so much the problem as your attitude. You advise, be a DM and do what needs to be done. The problem is that what you state goes beyond the suggested norm presented within the 3.5E rules, which many players expect to be respected. You presented your opinions as universally applicable, when they require communication between the DM and players and an understanding that you are setting the published standards aside.

In a 1E/2E game, what you suggested would be 100% true. In 3.5E, not even close.

 

[Celebrim]

In a 1E/2E game, what you suggested would be 100% true.

I don't even agree with that. I've been a DM since 1985. The game hasn't changed that much.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I don't even agree with that. I've been a DM since 1985. The game hasn't changed that much.

He advises being aggressive as a DM, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with that. A lot of people don't play that way, but I find it less objectionable than rewriting the system assumptions of 3.5E without warning or discussion. Most of what he said is simply hit the players hard, and make stuff up. The thing is, nothing in the 1E/2E rule books contradicts what he said. The 3.5E rulebooks do.

 

[Joseph Rossow]

I apologize if my attitude is generating some animosity. It's, like, my 7th post so I don't have a good feel for the forums just yet.

That being said, I play 3.5 D&D all the time and I don't understand why "setting the published standards aside" is such a big deal. Rotely following the standard is for "Living Greyhawk" or "Living Forgotten Realms." But in regular tabletop play, DMs (and players) are able to (and ought to) stray from those norms in an effort to heighten the adventure and fun.

Each group is a unique, collaboratively created being that behaves differently from other groups. Imposing standards (like CR) is nice starting place, but a good DM needs to be able to challenge his group (regardless of CR).

In any case, it's obvious that going with "the suggested norm presented within the 3.5E rules" was not working for this DM. It's time to think outside the box, yes?

I'm also concerned that some readers see my views as "breaking the rules." I guess some feel that by making a custom creature with some strange qualities (like high hit points) is somehow "unfair" to the players. Yet, when similar creatures come out in Monster Manual expansions and published adventures, it's suddenly okay.

Just because it's not in the monster manual, doesn't mean I can't make it, or that it isn't balanced. Straying from the rules doesn't mean you've gutted the system.

Again, I apologize if I'm offending anyone. D&D is a great collaborative, and improvisational game and I just want to share some of my views on the subject.

 

[BryonD]

In a 1E/2E game, what you suggested would be 100% true. In 3.5E, not even close.

Been keeping players on their toes for going on ten years in 3E.

I'd take pretty serious exception to the concept of making players "feel cheated". To me that just sounds like a horrid idea for creating fun.
But, the idea that player entitlement to know exactly what they are facing is different in 3E than in any other edition is just boggling to me.

And when people complain about problems with 3E and then make this kind of silly claim, I can't help but think "there's your problem".

If you said that players know a lot of detail about their characters abilities, then I agree. But nothing in 3E entitles players to know much of anything with certainty about what may be around the next corner.

My current game features a gibbering mouther. Except it is semi-incorporeal, shoots short ranged bursts of static electricity in place of bites, fires blasts of blinding light, and instead of blood drain it uses oddly colored light to inflict wisdom damage. And that is just what I used tonight.

If I was running a mid teens game and the characters all had 100 - 200 hp and they got the drop on a cleric npc and nuked him for 300 hp, then honestly, the npc would die. Either I did a terrible job of establishing a challenge or they got really lucky. Either way, let them enjoy their success. De-railing the DMs plans doesn't negate fun. Clumsy and obvious fudging does. Now if they had done 100 HP damage and the cleric had 94, then a 10 hp fudge to give the cleric one shot to escape is an option. I may or may not take it depending on how the circumstances fit for the best fun. Frequently, the npc would still be dead just because *I* like "let the dice fall" as a primary policy. But no rule is absolute.

But advances or reworking monsters and throwing things completely outside of player expectations is routine. The expectations in 3E are pretty much identical to prior editions. I know that my DMing philosophy didn't change. If anything having monster building and monster advancement in the core rules, and having the presumption that rather than an orc being an orc an orc may be a barbarian 7 (or was it barbarian 9.....) also right in the core, goes further to support creative DMing.

It isn't the box of crayons fault when only using the green makes a boring picture.

 

[BryonD]

The 3.5E rulebooks do.

Would you reference this please?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I apologize if my attitude is generating some animosity. It's, like, my 7th post so I don't have a good feel for the forums just yet.

That being said, I play 3.5 D&D all the time and I don't understand why "setting the published standards aside" is such a big deal. Rotely following the standard is for "Living Greyhawk" or "Living Forgotten Realms." But in regular tabletop play, DMs (and players) are able to (and ought to) stray from those norms in an effort to heighten the adventure and fun.

Each group is a unique, collaboratively created being that behaves differently from other groups. Imposing standards (like CR) is nice starting place, but a good DM needs to be able to challenge his group (regardless of CR).

In any case, it's obvious that going with "the suggested norm presented within the 3.5E rules" was not working for this DM. It's time to think outside the box, yes?

I'm also concerned that some readers see my views as "breaking the rules." I guess some feel that by making a custom creature with some strange qualities (like high hit points) is somehow "unfair" to the players. Yet, when similar creatures come out in Monster Manual expansions and published adventures, it's suddenly okay.

Just because it's not in the monster manual, doesn't mean I can't make it, or that it isn't balanced. Straying from the rules doesn't mean you've gutted the system.

Again, I apologize if I'm offending anyone. D&D is a great collaborative, and improvisational game and I just want to share some of my views on the subject.

It isn't that I was offended, I just disagree philosophically. I believe its perfectly fine to set aside the system, but I don't think its something you can do casually without discussion when using 3.5E as you seemed to suggest.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Would you reference this please?

Its not a specific reference. Its the basic assumption that monsters and PCs are built on the same framework and should follow the same rules that is intrinsic to 3E, and the expectation by many players that this assumption will be respected.

I'm not saying its wrong to set this aside. You can't set it aside to a greater degree than I did when I ran 3E. I'm saying its wrong to set this aside without comment, or just because you can.

 

[Celebrim]

I really didn't want to get into this, but its derailing the thread anyway so...

I am currently running a 3.5 edition D&D campaign wherein all my players are between levels 14 and 15. I do not have too much difficulty challenging my players.

I bet not. Anyone that arbitrarily adds 1000 extra hit points to his NPC's to make them 'epic' is going to have no problem 'challenging' the players. Congradulations, you've just discovered that DM's are omnipotent. But what are you going to do with that authority?

Going to your players for approval makes you look weak, and your players will capitalize on that and walk all over you. You are the DM. You make the decision.

I'm one of the biggest proponents of DM authority on the boards, but if you have such an adversarial relationship to your players that you are afraid of 'looking weak' by asking them what they want from their play experience, something is big time wrong.

The next time they run up to an evil cleric and do 300+ points of damage to him in the first round, slam right back and dish it out right back at them. Their jaws will drop, they will feel cheated, they will feel they're being treated unfairly, but you must hold your ground and attack mercilessly.

If your players feel like they are being cheated or treated unfairly, there is a good chance that in this case it is because they have been cheated and are being treated unfairly.

If your encounters don't make them fear for their character's lives, then what good are your encounters?

Having fun? Providing a reasonable level of challenge for the offered reward? Filling out your world so that it feels believable and immersive?

Putting a boss out there with 1,500 hp will make for, at least, a long enough encounter for the player's to savor the thrills of fighting an epic enemy.

I'm for exception based design as much as the next guy, but saying that you need to throw 1500 h.p. monsters out there is, particularly in the context of your other over the top advice, just ridiculous. Arbitarily giving a monster as much hit points as a god just to up the ante is highly suggestive of arbitrarily deciding when the fight should or shouldn't be over, and of a DM with serious authority issues whose just yanking players through hoops.

Nothing works quite as well as attack and damage. By this late in the game the group will have developed a myriad of immunities, from grappling to diseases, poisons, even the elements. Simply hitting them is often the most effective means of attack, so design enemies thusly.

In the long list of bad advice, this is the worst. While it's important that the monsters threaten the players, if you are having problems with cake walks, arbitrarily upping the amount of damage is a recipe for disaster that tends to turn the entire combat on the question of who wins initiative (which in turn tends to encourage both DM and player to cheat!). There are so many ways to challenge players that don't depend on simplistic high stake slugfest other than upping damage that increasing damage dealt is probably the last tool you should be reaching for.

Most importantly, once you have introduced an enemy or NPC that can wipe the floor with your player's characters, do not, under any circumstance, nerf it due to their protests or reactions.

I find this statement unintentionally revealling. Whatever you do, do not turn your table into a power struggle over the game. If your characters are being tempted to moan and complain, you've already got the game off on the wrong foot. Do not adopt this sort of adversarial stance; you are looking for big time trouble.

Beyond the problem DM/player confrontation assumed in the statement, why do you want an enemy that can 'wipe the floor with your player's characters' in the first place? In theory, there may be a boss out there that can wipe the floor with the player characters, but such should never be a forgone conclusion nor should such a character be motivated to do so, else you are simply going to have dead characters at the hands of an utterly unfair DM toy.

 

[Joseph Rossow]

I really didn't want to get into this, but its derailing the thread anyway so...

lol!

Yeah, it's time for quote-wars I guess. But instead of quoting, I just put the issue above the response. Correct me if I misinterpred the issue.


Arbitrarily adding 1,000's of hp
I'm sorry if my previous posts seemed to imply that a DM should "suddenly" endow a creature with 1,000 extra hit points. I was trying to say one can do so whilst designing their adventure. I agree, someone who fudges these numbers on the fly is "cheating."


DM's appearing "weak"
First, I'm not encouraging "adversarial relationships" at gaming tables. Nor do I play at such a table. That's silly. I am, however, encouraging the notion that the DM needs to be the dominant force at the table.

In my opinion, getting players opinions on things is best saved for before and after a campaign, not in between sessions. That lends itself to the idea that a DM needs their player's approval to introduce thing, which is also silly. Players should have no idea of what's coming behind that corner.


"Being treated unfairly"
First, I'm not advocating a DM treat their players unfairly. I said that "feeling cheated" was a possible reaction to suddenly introducing a strong challenge to a group.

A DM can (and should) place player characters up against opponents who may offer them a challenge. Just because this half-elf spellblade doesn't one-shot the baddie doesn't mean the encounter can't be fun. Just because some PC gets killed during the encounter doesn't mean it can't be fun.

This goes back to an old pamphlet of D&D advice, written by a old-gamer, who still plays in our group (perhaps the most influential document on my DM'ing style). This is an exceprt from one of the sections:

"There is a confusion between what is enjoyable for the player and what is enjoyable for the player's character. The two conditions need not occur simultaneously, nor is one the prerequisite for the other."

Just because a DM hoses their player's characters, doesn't mean their players won't have fun.


Life-threatening encounters
If a combat-encounter doesn't have a significant impact on the game, or put critical choices in front of the character, it shouldn't be run. Why bother with an encounter that 1) eats up an hour of play, 2) doesn't offer a serious threat or reward, and 3) doesn't advance (or create) the plot?

A clever DM can fill out their world with things besides combat encounters.

It seems to be suggested that groups should be offered a reasonable reward for a reasonable challenge, like groups should be able to go into a forest, fight something their level, get loot of their level, and return home. I find that situation ridiculous. Once the player character's have enter the woods, they may be subject to encountering foes far beyond their means to defeat.


1,500 hit points and longer fights
First of all, DM's yank players through hoops all the time. Every adventure is just a series of hoops one puts the players through. I mean, let's be serious about this.

And arbitrarily deciding when a fight should end is certainly another tool in the DM toolbox. I'm not saying use it all the time; I'm not saying use this more than one a campaign, but it's a tool to be used none-the-less.


Attack and Damage - Wost Piece of Advice EVAR!
I was giving a single, simple way to deal with a high-level group. There are others, but I was attempting to keep my post short and to the point. At high levels groups have a lot of immunities to stuff, and good-ol' weapon damage, generally cuts straight through those.


Something to do with Power Struggles
You quoted me saying "once you introduce your Large McHuge monster, don't suddenly nerf it or remove it." Then you said something like "if a monster is so powerful that the player's complain, it should be removed."

I think this is what we're talking about.

That seems to imply that powerfully strong creatures should never come into conflict with adventurers. Adventurers should just be fighting things they can defeat.

That outlook of a world is unrealistic. There are oozes with the hit points of gods and cruel, evil clerics who routinely crush adventurers. Facing (and overcoming) those nightmares is what makes D&D so fun!

Summary
I can understand how some of my reasoning feels counter-intuitive or strange. I am not the best writer, so sometimes I leave out important notes. But my methods of dealing with the situation have worked well for me (honestly, I don't have a group full of people who think I cheat, or who feel 'bullied' by me), and I just wanted to share those with everyone. Which is, after all, what forums like these are for.

I am new to the forums, and I'm glad, at least, that people are reading about my views. I'm sure there will be more disagreement, but I don't mean to start any antagonism.