High AC and encounters

[iserith]

I am not sure I am understanding what you meant here. You seem to be using "would" and "could" in a somewhat (to me) unusual meaning or context. Are you saying that what you decide the monster does is, by definition, the one and only thing that the monster could do? I mean, I suppose...

If, on the other hand, the monster could do (in the sense of "in the abstract is capable of") any of several things, then the fact that you managed to choose one of those indicates to me that you in loco monstri do, in fact, know what the monster would do.

It's kind of like saying "It's what my character would do" as if there's only one thing they will do in a given situation. (Often that's used to justify why someone has chosen something that annoys everyone else at the table.) I always say "could," meaning that, sure, they could do that, but they could do this other thing as well and it would be just as reasonable. The same goes for monsters. Some might say that the mindless zombie would just go for the nearest target. I say, sure, they could do that, or the zombie could lurch toward the armored cleric, stumble on this here difficult terrain, and end up next to the wizard who it then attempts to slam. Or it senses the cleric's holiness on some level and avoids him in favor of the godless robe-wearing wizard. Or whatever other reason I might come up with in the moment.

 

[iserith]

Why would you do such a thing!

Seriously though, it is completely disadvantageous for 3 of the goblins to give advantage to the identical 3 statblocks next to them, rather than just all 6 attacking without advantage (I'm assuming identical statblocks).

Unless those were intended as ways of making it easier on the PC without a less experienced player picking up on it.

Two identical actions without advantage are always superior to one of the exact same action with advantage.

Would you mind showing the math on this if it's not too difficult? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Or maybe someone else with the skills I lack?

 

[Oofta]

Would you mind showing the math on this if it's not too difficult? I'd be interested in seeing it.

Or maybe someone else with the skills I lack?

Unless I'm missing something, it's actually worse to have 3 aid 3 others assuming all creatures have the same attack bonus and damage.

Scenario 1 helping: 3 mooks aid a second set of 3 mooks. The DM now rolls 2 D20s for each mook in the second group, a total of 6 attack rolls. In some cases, both rolls for a single mook would have hit. The odds of any single D20 hitting is unchanged.

Scenario 2 all attacking: DM still rolls 6 D20s to hit, and on average will have the same number of die rolls that could hit. However, every roll that could hit will hit, there are no "wasted" hits.

Is that the question? As far as probability it may not make a huge difference, but scenario 2 will always be better (even if only slightly so).

Then there's scenario 3 where 1 or 2 mooks try to knock the target prone with a shove. If they're successful, the rest of the mooks have advantage. Now that would probably be dependent on chance of shove succeeding vs chance of hitting.

 

[iserith]

Unless I'm missing something, it's actually worse to have 3 aid 3 others assuming all creatures have the same attack bonus and damage.

Scenario 1 helping: 3 mooks aid a second set of 3 mooks. The DM now rolls 2 D20s for each mook in the second group, a total of 6 attack rolls. In some cases, both rolls for a single mook would have hit. The odds of any single D20 hitting is unchanged.

Scenario 2 all attacking: DM still rolls 6 D20s to hit, and on average will have the same number of die rolls that could hit. However, every roll that could hit will hit, there are no "wasted" hits.

Is that the question? As far as probability it may not make a huge difference, but scenario 2 will always be better (even if only slightly so).

Then there's scenario 3 where 1 or 2 mooks try to knock the target prone with a shove. If they're successful, the rest of the mooks have advantage. Now that would probably be dependent on chance of shove succeeding vs chance of hitting.

That makes sense. I'd be interested to see the probabilities and whatnot, just for funsies, if anyone is inclined. I'm not sure how involved that would be to calculate.

 

[iserith]

Don't metagame for or against it. Don't select foes that are especially good or bad against the PC. Then, have the enemies do what they'd do when facing the PCs. So, for some monsters, ignoring the tin can to attack the fleshy wizard makes sense. At other times, the orc chief will relish the challenge of ripping the armor off the foolish cleric that thought it would protect him.

Tell a good story.

I'm not sure I would use "metagame" in that sense. (Though I try not to use it at all.)

I addressed upthread what I think about what the enemies "would" do - whatever I say they'll do for any reason I choose to invent. Do you think it's possible to both select foes that are good or bad against the PC and/or have enemies do what I want and still tell a good story?

 

[Oofta]

That makes sense. I'd be interested to see the probabilities and whatnot, just for funsies, if anyone is inclined. I'm not sure how involved that would be to calculate.

Of course the real solution is to send in zombie squirrels to help your zombies. Since they don't do any damage, they're CR0 and don't count towards your XP budget!

 

[jgsugden]

...- whatever I say they'll do for any reason I choose to invent. Do you think it's possible to both select foes that are good or bad against the PC and/or have enemies do what I want and still tell a good story?

Possible? Yes. I definitely tailor a small portion of the encounters to focus on a story element for the PCs. However, I do not generally tailor a combat around the combat abilities of the PCs unless there is a huge gap in PC capabilities (for example, they have no ranged attack capability at all). My tailoring is for story purposes 90%+ of the time and for combat balance/gap issues very rarely.

A lot of DMs fall into a trap where they worry about what PCs do well and feel they need to counter it to "challenge" the PCs. However, this only serves to frustrate players and make the fell less special. When they invest in abilities, we owe it to them to let the abilities have the effect envisioned by the creators of the game. If your PC specializes in fire magic and suddenly everything is immune to fire... that is frustrating. However, players can and do expect to see roughly the normal amount of fire immune creatures in the game.

 

[Ymdar]

Push him into a lake.

Funny you say that. In one of my previous games the party was after a cult fanatic on a lake. Everyone was rowing. The fanatic stopped rowing for a round and cast command:"Swim!" on the cleric with heavy armor. She failed her saving throw and the party had to decide whether to help the drowning cleric or go after the fanatic. It was a challenging low level encounter to say the least.

 

[iserith]

Possible? Yes. I definitely tailor a small portion of the encounters to focus on a story element for the PCs. However, I do not generally tailor a combat around the combat abilities of the PCs unless there is a huge gap in PC capabilities (for example, they have no ranged attack capability at all). My tailoring is for story purposes 90%+ of the time and for combat balance/gap issues very rarely.

A lot of DMs fall into a trap where they worry about what PCs do well and feel they need to counter it to "challenge" the PCs. However, this only serves to frustrate players and make the fell less special. When they invest in abilities, we owe it to them to let the abilities have the effect envisioned by the creators of the game. If your PC specializes in fire magic and suddenly everything is immune to fire... that is frustrating. However, players can and do expect to see roughly the normal amount of fire immune creatures in the game.

I agree that could be frustrating. I don't feel I owe anything to the players to pay off their investments. They have invested in an opportunity, not a right. It's on them in my view to do the things to maximize the payoff on that opportunity via their choices in the game. I'm not going to have monsters swing and miss the heavily-armored cleric just because the cleric's player took a feat and some armor - but I will if the cleric has made it so that's my only viable choice.

 

[Warpiglet]

Funny you say that. In one of my previous games the party was after a cult fanatic on a lake. Everyone was rowing. The fanatic stopped rowing for a round and cast command:"Swim!" on the cleric with heavy armor. She failed her saving throw and the party had to decide whether to help the drowning cleric or go after the fanatic. It was a challenging low level encounter to say the least.

Pretty cool perious situation!

As fate would have it, the party is now in a lower level cavern system where humans, goblins and hobgoblins are immersed in pools to be "transformed." The plan is to have the characters interrupt this operation but face goons who will try to grapple, drag and dunk them!

Death by drowning...yuck! But the other option is to have them "transform" instead when they would drown and have to seek some sort of magic to undo the change.

The point is: what others are saying about hazards is wise counsel. Swords and maces are only one kind of danger. Falling and slipping, drowning, etc. are all things that I need to add in.

I do not want to penalize any player but rather give everyone something to dread, avoid and solve. Or die.

Muhahaha