dnd 3.5 - Challenge my party.

[Runestar]

Increasing damage and hp of the monsters is only a quick fix which fails to tackle the real issue, IMO.

At higher lvs, it isn't damage which wins fights. It is battlefield control spells which shut down all the foes altogether, giving the fighter free reign to whack them to his heart's content.

So if a monster is simply going to be standing there impotently, it doesn't really matter if it has 1 or 1 million hp, or if it deals 1 or 1000 damage per hit, does it?

And the players will likely quickly adjust their tactics to work around your so-called fix. For instance, if I know my foe will have so much hp that damage is ineffective, then I would probably switch to save-or-die effects, or maybe find some way of skipping the fight altogether (like forcecaging him and continuing on).

What are you going to do then? Make the monster immune to every effect in the game?

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 won't say it is necessarily wrong, just that it comes across as being very inelegant. Seeing that your players are clearly fine with what you are doing, I don't think I am really in a position to complain or protest.

However, one issue I have with this is that it doesn't seem to reward the players for being strong. It is more like punishing them.

"Oh, you deal twice as much damage as a typical fighter? Congratulations, now every monster automatically has 10 times as much hp thanks to you."

If you look in the 3e forum here, there were a series of threads started by a member named jeffct who sought a lot of advice on creating high-lv encounters to properly challenge his party. It took a lot of work, since he preferred to stick with the existing rules, and classed npcs are notoriously weak/fragile for their crs at higher lvs. But he managed to pull it off.

I think what the OP might need to start to do is to learn to use more challenging tactics, rather than just inflating the stats of his monsters.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Please, EXACTLY WHAT am I setting aside?

You said the 3.5E rulebooks "do" contradict him. In what region of the books is this "basic assumption" described? You stated it as a simple fact. Now you've backed that down to a generalization but you've still provided exactly ZERO evidence that you are actually saying has anything to do with reality.

If 3E has something in it that is different than 1E/2E in regard to this contradiction, it must be contained within the words of the game.

The problem you have run into is, it quite simply is not there at all.

There is nothing to be set aside. You are making an absurd claim.

Jack Chick has made some claims also. His claims are absurd also, but at least he has sited some evidence. He's got you beat.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Please, EXACTLY WHAT am I setting aside?

You said the 3.5E rulebooks "do" contradict him. In what region of the books is this "basic assumption" described? You stated it as a simple fact. Now you've backed that down to a generalization but you've still provided exactly ZERO evidence that you are actually saying has anything to do with reality.

If 3E has something in it that is different than 1E/2E in regard to this contradiction, it must be contained within the words of the game.

The problem you have run into is, it quite simply is not there at all.

There is nothing to be set aside. You are making an absurd claim.

Jack Chick has made some claims also. His claims are absurd also, but at least he has sited some evidence. He's got you beat.

Habla Ingles much?

What part of "not a specific reference", "assumption", and most importantly "expectation by many players that this system assumption will be respected" do you fail to understand?

We'll try it again, for the 3rd graders this time:

One of the major things 3E added was building characters and monsters using the same rules. This was a major feature of 3E, and denying this is rather ludicrous. The rules presented for creating enemies sets down a very specific system for generating and advancing enemies, and the enemies WotC provided all follow these rules. While not specifically stated that you HAD to follow these rules, these were the rules presented. Consequently, many players expected DMs to follow these rules, and were familiar enough with these rules to notice when the DM stops following them.

My whole point(which you ignore) is that many players expect the DM to follow these rules, since they are in fact the rules, and will get upset of the DM sets them aside arbitrarily. I never said you can't ignore this aspect of 3E. I ignored this aspect of 3E. What you can't do is expect every player to accept this without consultation.

Unless you have personally spoke to everyone who has ever played 3.5E, I don't see where your argument is coming from.

 

[Celebrim]

But instead of quoting, I just put the issue above the response. Correct me if I misinterpred the issue.

Ok.

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.

Well, you can do that; you are the DM. However, it's probably not a good idea. First of all, there isn't alot of difference between arbitrarily adding 1000 extra hit points to a creature before hand and on the fly. When you add that big of a number, you are turning the fight into a predictable grind. However, much more importantly, you'll totally change the balance of the game. As other's have pointed out, the PC's - once they figure out all the monsters have hit point totals normally associated with dieties - will simply adjust their tactics to defeat the foe in a way that bypasses hitpoints. In the mean time, any character which developed his skills to dish out alot of damage (an evoker or a fighter type character) is going to find himself basically useless compared to someone that can sling out 'charm monster', 'hold monster', 'polymorph any object', and other effects. So yes, some player is probably being cheated unfairly merely because you can't find a way to challenge your players other than bigger numbers.

First, I'm not encouraging "adversarial relationships" at gaming tables. Nor do I play at such a table.

Good. However, you do an amazingly evocative job describing a table in turmoil with lots of complaining, lots of power struggles, lots of rules breaking, lots of authority issues, and I think you do an amazing job of describing how to get yourself in that sort of situation. If you've avoided it, you must have very tolerant players and/or some aspect of your DMing that greatly makes up for the deficiencies you describe. And, I should say, that's ok. One of the best DMs I ever had was a mediocre tactician, a terrible rulesmith and a worse mapper. That didn't make him a bad DM.

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.

Getting player's approval is not nearly the same thing as getting the player's input. As a DM, you need to observe whether your players are getting bored, fidgety, frustrated, etc. and adapt your play style to meet their needs. If they like melodrama, give them more melodrama. If they like hack and slash, give them more hack-n-slash. If they like big sweeping epic stories, give them more big sweeping stories and if they like the freedom of the sandbox let them play in the sandbox for a while. That isn't to say that you give them complete control, much less that you need their approval to introduce some element, but if your players are having fun you probably should consult with them before deciding the game isn't hard enough. Beating the players is easy. Any DM can beat the players. All you got to do is make the numbers bigger.

But that is most certainly not the same thing as challenging them.

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.

And if that strong challenge is based off a gross violation of the game expectations - say a lvl 20 cleric with 1500 hit points and the capacity to dish out 300 points of damage a round or something of the sort - then its quite possible that the player's feeling that they are being cheated has a significant basis in fact. I know that if I found that the monsters stats were inflating like that they I'd feel like I was being pushed around by DM toys that grew in proportion to the DM's need to feel in control.

A DM can (and should) place player characters up against opponents who may offer them a challenge.

Sure, I have no problem with that. I'm actually known as a 'killer DM', the sort that can rack up a huge body count. I generally don't do it though by simply upping the numbers. I do it by playing the monsters with high tactical proficiency, by knowing CR well, by giving the monsters the advantages of 'home ground', and by not letting up. But if I'm finding myself playing with players that aren't up to the level of skill that I'm acustomed to and see that they are getting frustrated rather than learning to play well together as a team, I'm going to ratchet things down a notch and show off some other time.

Just because some PC gets killed during the encounter doesn't mean it can't be fun.

That depends on the player and the PC. Usually, killing PC's is a big bummer for everyone at the table.

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

I'm not sure what you mean by 'hoses' in this context, but your suggestions aren't very thoughtful ones in my opinion. They are brute force techniques that a compotent DM should avoid because they go wrong more often than not. There is a narrow path that must be trod here between being too easy on one hand and being a self-centered jerk who is ego gaming as the DM. As the DM, your job is to lose. You just try to lose in a way that makes it look like the PC's won even though the odds were stacked in the monsters favor. It's a balancing act, and dropping 1000 extra hit points on your side of the table is well in your power, but is unbalancing and doesn't show alot of finesse.

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?

Not every encounter should be a critical one. Some encounters are simply part of world exploration. Some encounters exist to give a change to the players to explore their character's abilities (not every player is an old hat). Some encounters are just oppurtunities for character development, and/or have at their core some problem that is not tactical or martial in nature. Some encounters exist because the players stumbled into them unexpectedly and quite without you anticipating it. Some encounters exist because the players decided they wanted a chance to define what the plot was and take the story in some new direction. Some encounters exist to give scale to the real BBEG. Some encounters exist to give a chance for the player to experience just how powerful they've become and how much has changed since they first started out. This is certainly true of stories. Not every 'encounter' in a movie or novel pushes the hero to his utmost. Some 'encounters' serve other purposes.

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.

True, but the two situations aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, they may be subject to encountering foes far beyond their means to defeat. But, and this is more likely, they might not. If we are sandboxing, the possibilities cover an entire range from encountering nothing to encountering a world destroying monstrousity. However, most of the time in a successful campaign, challenges offer reasonable rewards or the characters will soon feel as if whatever they do is pointless.

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.

I'm being very serious about this.

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.

I think you are now just making up what we are talking about, because neither of those look remotely like quotations to me.

That seems to imply that powerfully strong creatures should never come into conflict with adventurers.

Well, that does but nothing I said does.

I can understand how some of my reasoning feels counter-intuitive or strange.

No, it doesn't. It feels very inexperienced. It feels very unpolished. But it doesn't seem very strange at all, because its exactly what I would expect a junior high DM to do (and what I was doing about that time). What's strange and counter-intuitive is your claim to have been doing this 13 years. So maybe the problem is that you just have a hard time expressing yourself with your writing and your opinions are alot more nuanced than you present them as.

 

[malkav666]

2 quick additions:

@C.obliv and BryonD:

I would have to take Bryon's side in that discussion. I think Bryon came on a little too strong in some of his counters, but he does have a large point.I do not feel there is anything about 3.x that says the DM cannot or should not change things up without consulting the players. I feel that the rules for making monsters in 3.x do follow some of the same creation rules. But I feel that this was done as an effort to ease the process of making a baseline for DMs to make new monsters. I do not feel that those rules are the end-point for monster vs player balance, but rather just a gague of where to start.

I do not feel like, nor have I ever felt like, I needed my players permission to design monsters. Now if I wanted to redesign a class they were playing or trying to qualify for mid-game? I would take that up with the player. But I would not require their approval to modify a monster to better suit my game. Now some of the modifications presented in this thread are a little silly. If I were thinking about raising the HP of all monsters bhy 1500 hp, then yes I think my group and I would be in need of a talk.

But on the general level I do not feel restricted in any shape or form in my ability to design in 3.x. It feels just like older and newer version of the same game to me in those regards.

@J. Rossow

I think the reason you got a negative response in this thread was the way you portrayed your opinions in text rather than the points you are trying to make.

Do I agree that it would be fun or right to just pump up the monsters and get in arms race with the players because there were some DPS issues witht he group? Nope, I may use that as one of my tools for varied encounters, but it would certainly not be my ace. I would use a veriety of tactics.

I also dont feel bad about talking over issue I may have with the game with my players. I do not feel this shows any form of weakness. But thats just me.

love,

malkav

 

[Rawion]

hm...How would they fare against an army, or a cunning group of legendary assassins that have just the right weapon(s) to exploit their weaknesses, or a coolition of chromatic dragons controlled directly by Tiamat, or something else really powerful like that?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

2 quick additions:

@C.obliv and BryonD:

I would have to take Bryon's side in that discussion. I think Bryon came on a little too strong in some of his counters, but he does have a large point.I do not feel there is anything about 3.x that says the DM cannot or should not change things up without consulting the players. I feel that the rules for making monsters in 3.x do follow some of the same creation rules. But I feel that this was done as an effort to ease the process of making a baseline for DMs to make new monsters. I do not feel that those rules are the end-point for monster vs player balance, but rather just a gague of where to start.

I do not feel like, nor have I ever felt like, I needed my players permission to design monsters. Now if I wanted to redesign a class they were playing or trying to qualify for mid-game? I would take that up with the player. But I would not require their approval to modify a monster to better suit my game. Now some of the modifications presented in this thread are a little silly. If I were thinking about raising the HP of all monsters bhy 1500 hp, then yes I think my group and I would be in need of a talk.

But on the general level I do not feel restricted in any shape or form in my ability to design in 3.x. It feels just like older and newer version of the same game to me in those regards.

Two things:

1. Your personal experiences may vary, but there was a large portion of the 3.5E community that believed in RAW(rules as written). The significance of RAW was one of the many points often argued about among the 3.5E community, and sometimes was a very spirited discussion. If you've been following 3.5E discussion on forums during the heyday of 3.5E, you would certainly have seen this. Its because of the people who find RAW important that I don't think you can throw out or make adjustments to the monster design system just because you're the DM. Some players enjoy their system mastery, and throwing out the system renders a players hard-won system mastery irrelevant, which they may or may not be ok with.

2. If you remember some of the 4E edition wars, one of the main points of it was 4E's abandonment of the concept that PCs and monsters were built under the same rules. I don't see how you can argue that 3.5E's rules for building monsters were unimportant or easily set aside when you look at everyone who flipped out when 4E dumped this philosophy.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Casualoblivion: I tell my players right out, something to the effect of: "While monsters follow the same rules and mechanics as PCs (I won't give a dragon PC's breath weapon a 1/encounter limit and the dragon NPC a recharge time), I am absolutely not...EVER fully statting out classed NPCs. You guys have 24/7 to build and optimize. I have to create your next batch of corpses on a week's notice. I am NOT wasting my time optimizing all of them to match what you do. If I want to just give bonuses that sound about right to save time, I will do so." Any DM that doesn't want nightmarish preparation times should do the same. Now stop derailing the thread with your 3E bashing.

As someone who's played in a 10 year campaign that went to level 36, let me just say that the occasional combat against people specifically designed to attack your weakness is thrilling and suggests that the entire campaign world's villains are strategizing to stop you. It's like being a star.

It stinks if your DM does it every time, but intermittently? It rocks.

Yes, i really do enjoy the occasional perfect foil. Sometimes because it's a recurring enemy, sometimes it just happens to also be an optimal build/idea.

I'd like to point out some legitimate items from sources for the OP, all good for countering and/or re-directing the PCs' own awesomeness back on themselves:

Amulet of Retribution (MIC): Immediate action to inflict half the damage you just suffered back on the guy who hit you.

Counter Charge (Tome of Battle): Maneuver, to keep things simple if you're not familiar...anyone can take it as a feat at level 2+. Immediate action against a charger, choose to force an opposed dex or str check (your choice which one each of you roll). You get a +2/4 (I forget) bonus on the dex check if smaller than the foe, and +2/4 on the str check if larger than the foe. If you win, the charge is countered and you send the foe up to 10 ft in whatever direction you like. if you lose, the foe gets +2 to hit you on the charge.

Spell Reflection (C. Mage): Alt. class feature for Evasion, instead lets you redirect a missed touch spell / spell-like ability back at the caster automatically as an immediate action. As written, this works for melee touch AND ranged touch abilities. The caster then re-rolls to try and hit himself, and...takes an Empowered Enervation to the face!

Elusive Target (C. Warrior): Tactical feat w/ 3 abilities. One of them says if you're flanked by your Dodge target (as in, with the Dodge feat), his first attack each round automatically veers past you and hits the buddy he's flanking with. If the charging PC tries to charge into a flank, this can get pretty darn mean.

Cometary Collision (PH2): Feat, lets you ready against a charge, such that you can then charge into the idiot that charges within your movement range. Note you CAN get "set vs. charge" x2 damage bonus with this, and you CAN use the Pounce ability (I see no reason why a trained Lion/Tiger couldn't learn this; Pounce is available to a level 1 Barbarian) to full attack on this counter-attack of pain. The Steadfast boots (MIC) will let you set vs. charge with any weapon for 4000 gp if you want a more badass weapon than a longspear. You can further add insult to injury with the same charge-line feats your PC uses.

Delay Death (Spell Compendium); Level 4 Cleric spell, round/level. Target can't die from hp damage. That's a pretty big slap in the face after they did all that damage...

Fortunate Fate (SpC?): Basically a contingent Heal spell for when the target takes enough damage to otherwise die. Cleric 7.

More obscure / less easily available:

Fool's Strike (ToB): Counter maneuver, immediate action. Enemy's attack, if it misse,s hits himself instead. Only really available to a high level Swordsage. Or an Epic level monster with lots of HD and feats to splurge, maybe...

[forgot name] (Dungeonscape): Factotem eventually gets a class feature to be able to once/encounter completely ignore the damage from one attack he just suffered.

Deathless Frenzy (C. Warrior): Frenzied Berserker PrC class feature. Basically like Delay death, except during raging.
......................................................................
Basically, there's a lot of ways to turn strength against itself. These are just some legit written examples, and please...other people feel free to add more! I don't think it's awful for a DM to create new and fun feats / races / etc... with abilities of a similar power level. Just as long as the majority of encounters aren't made to punish them for their offense too much, it shouldn't piss them off. Hopefully it might even make them hold back a little.

I think the use of illusions is fine on occasion, too. It's just a smart thing for the bad guys to do. if the players get angry their spell/action was wasted...serves 'em right for rushing in without restraint. You cna give them some hordes to butcher once in a while so they have their badass moments, but don't be afraid to humble them from time to time, too.

Oh, and there are a LOT of specific tricks to screw over a charging PC, if you'd like.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Oh, and of course the simplest way to mitigate early round offense is to just have the enemies come in waves. If the important guys aren't around on round 1, no amount of megadeath from the party will be able to keep them from being around later on.

 

[malkav666]

Two things:

1. Your personal experiences may vary, but there was a large portion of the 3.5E community that believed in RAW(rules as written). The significance of RAW was one of the many points often argued about among the 3.5E community, and sometimes was a very spirited discussion. If you've been following 3.5E discussion on forums during the heyday of 3.5E, you would certainly have seen this. Its because of the people who find RAW important that I don't think you can throw out or make adjustments to the monster design system just because you're the DM. Some players enjoy their system mastery, and throwing out the system renders a players hard-won system mastery irrelevant, which they may or may not be ok with.

2. If you remember some of the 4E edition wars, one of the main points of it was 4E's abandonment of the concept that PCs and monsters were built under the same rules. I don't see how you can argue that 3.5E's rules for building monsters were unimportant or easily set aside when you look at everyone who flipped out when 4E dumped this philosophy.

As to point 1. I have never seen this player in real life. I have seen them talked about on internet forums, and maybe even seen some heated debates about RAW on the char op forums. But in the real world I just don't run into this large portion of the 3.x community you are speaking of, in fact I have not run into any of them. I play with powergamers,munchkins, and emo roleplayers when the need strikes and I am a gaming slut. I game with whomever. I have seen arguments with the players vs the DM in some cases. And they were always over the verdict of some ruling that the DM had made that they (the player) felt was unfair. I have never in my entire gaming life seen a player get upset just because the DM had decided to alter the rules for whatever reason (to clarify if a player gets upset IME, it has been over the verdict, not the act of rules modification in and of itself). I have not witnessed it even on a single occasion. So while you say it is a large portion, and I say i is not. I just have to assume that neither of us have any real representation of how the community feels about it as a whole. And in the long run I don't think it truly matters. So the only part of your post that really seems to be on point is" Your personal experiences may vary...."

As to point number 2. I don't particularly care about the 4e edition wars. I think they are stupid and I am tired of reading about them. I don't care who flipped out on what internet forum over whatever rule was abandoned. None of the folks I know in real life were flipping out. They still are not. But I imagine you know more about 4e and the edition wars surrounding it, as I try not to participate in either.

If I sounded rude, I apologize, it was certainly not my intent.

love,

malkav