D&D 5E So Was That Z Fellow right?

[FrogReaver]

Who needs to change the rules? I won't insist somebody can't make a certain PC (assuming I allow Feats for some reason), but I will make it clear that life won't be easy for Captain DPR and his delicious, nutritious brains in the Underdark.

And yet, you keep saying that because out of game you know he is captain DPR that bad things are going to befall him more often in game. How is that not changing the rules?

 

[Nevvur]

And yet, you keep saying that because out of game you know he is captain DPR that bad things are going to befall him more often in game. How is that not changing the rules?

Is it not reasonable for NPCs to target the guy they see chopping down people left and right? Isn't focusing fire on the most obviously dangerous enemy what most PCs do?

 

[FrogReaver]

Is it not reasonable for NPCs to target the guy they see chopping down people left and right? Isn't focusing fire on the most obviously dangerous enemy what most PCs do?

Thats not all he was saying he would do.

 

[Caliban]

Is it not reasonable for NPCs to target the guy they see chopping down people left and right? Isn't focusing fire on the most obviously dangerous enemy what most PCs do?

Yeah, but that's not what Parmandur is saying. He's just saying he's going to target that character. No waiting to see them chop down anyone, just innate knowledge of the PC's capabilities and automatic targeting.

Presumably they also know the PC's worst save and the best way to defend against their attacks, because if you are going to be a judgmental meta-gaming DM, why go half way?

 

[Nevvur]

[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION]

I understand that, and I don't endorse the kind of attitude he expressed, but I'm also a pragmatist. There's no meaningful difference to me whether a DM kills off a PC because the DM is spiteful toward the player or because the DM is running his monsters in a tactically optimal manner.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

Yeah, but that's not what Parmandur is saying. He's just saying he's going to target that character. No waiting to see them chop down anyone, just innate knowledge of the PC's capabilities and automatic targeting.

Presumably they also know the PC's worst save and the best way to defend against their attacks, because if you are going to be a judgmental meta-gaming DM, why go half way?

I think you are being a little over judgmental meta-gaming DM's in general with that last line. A good DM should provide a variety of challenges to the players. Staying away from a players weakness is just as much meta-gaming as continuously focusing on it. I regularly set up challenges/fights meant to force players to look beyond their "one trick pony" builds. Higher AC's vs GWM, rogues types with Bonus Action Disengage vs. PAM, casters prepared to Counter spell/Dispel Magic the party. They also get encounters where the Paladin/Sorcerer with Shield can only be hit on a 20 or the Tunnel Fighter can hold off dozens of monsters when in a good spot. Saying you they will find Mind Flayers in the underdark is that outrageous of a statement.

 

[Caliban]

@FrogReaver @Caliban

I understand that, and I don't endorse the kind of attitude he expressed, but I'm also a pragmatist. There's no meaningful difference to me whether a DM kills off a PC because the DM is spiteful toward the player or because the DM is running his monsters in a tactically optimal manner.

Maybe not to you. But I think there is a huge difference - because if the DM is being spiteful that means your PC really has no chance. If the DM wants you dead, you are gonna die.

If the DM is running their monsters intelligently but fairly, that doesn't mean certain death for the PC's.

 

[Caliban]

I think you are being a little over judgmental meta-gaming DM's in general with that last line. ... Saying you they will find Mind Flayers in the underdark is that outrageous of a statement.

I have no idea what you are saying here. This is gibberish.

 

[Oofta]

I think you are being a little over judgmental meta-gaming DM's in general with that last line. A good DM should provide a variety of challenges to the players. Staying away from a players weakness is just as much meta-gaming as continuously focusing on it. I regularly set up challenges/fights meant to force players to look beyond their "one trick pony" builds. Higher AC's vs GWM, rogues types with Bonus Action Disengage vs. PAM, casters prepared to Counter spell/Dispel Magic the party. They also get encounters where the Paladin/Sorcerer with Shield can only be hit on a 20 or the Tunnel Fighter can hold off dozens of monsters when in a good spot. Saying you they will find Mind Flayers in the underdark is that outrageous of a statement.

There's a big difference between playing monsters intelligently and saying "if players build a character I don't like, that character will die, guaranteed".

Challenging/likely deadly is not the same as deadly no matter what the PC does.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

I have no idea what you are saying here. This is gibberish.

I'm saying your response seemed be just as judgmental. You seem to be assume based on a single comment that all encounters are going to be focused on taking this one player down. Saying that there will be encounters that will challenge this certain build is not all that out of line. Implying that a DM is bad for poking at a characters weakness from time to time comes across as a Meta-gaming attempt to force all encounters into a certain mold always favorable for that style.