D&D General BBEGs shouldn't miss.

[Charlaquin]

I just don't see the point of introducing a random element to the narrative if you are going ignore said random element. Just choose the result you want and be honest about it.

I mean, I get it. It’s kind of like rolling on those random dungeon generation tables in the DMG, deciding you don’t like the result you rolled, and rolling again, or picking the next result down the list or whatever. The roll is really just a starting point to get the creative juices flowing. Introducing that random element to combat, while allowing yourself the flexibility to change the result if you think it’s important to do so, is something I can totally understand the appeal of. I just think it’s kind of sketchy to do that without telling the players it’s what you’re doing. If you’re up front about the fact that you might fudge rolls, you roll in the open, and tell your players when you’re fudging? I don’t see a problem with that, so long as the players are cool with it too.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fudging is extremely uncommon at my table, and when it happens it usually takes the form of a re-roll, kinda like a sudden inspiration you can use right away. But that's my DMing style.

I'm pretty sure any player whose DM uses a screen and rolls behind it knows that fudging might and will happen. I played with such DMs and I had fun, fully knowing that perhaps some fudging was happening behind the scenes. Not a problem to me.

Sure, but if you’re ok with it anyway then what’s the screen actually doing? Why not roll in the open, and still fudge the results?

The "better policy" you proposed I would actually intensely dislike. What's that, you're asking me for permission? You're the DM, you decide, take responsibility for your game, man.

Ok, so take the same scenario and change the DM’s questions to declarative statements. “I’m gonna change that crit to a regular hit” or “I’m gonna change that miss to a hit.” My point wasn’t about asking for permission, but about being honest with your players about what you’re doing and why.

 

[GMMichael]

My own problem with BBEGs in those types of fights is that I invariably roll something in the low single digits for Initiative, and the BBEG has lost any chance of taking control of things before their first turn.

Give the BBEG a surprise turn, maybe? I don't think those require rolling.

I think there shouldn't be Boss Monster's. The idea of a Boss Monster means I'm playing a video game. I prefer to present my players with a living world. If I wanted them to play a video game, I would tell them to go do that.

Boss monsters might sound like a video game concept, but they're present in many more media, and D&D codified them with Legendary Actions. The idea of a boss monster, to me, means that my character's life is on the line, and there's a significant reward to be had. High stakes!

I don't think the boss should miss with their attacks, or at the very least they should have an effect regardless of whether their attack hits. This was a common design conceit in 4e, but not in 5e.

What do you think? Should D&D boss monsters have more abilities that don't require a die roll to be threatening?

Players aren't likely to appreciate having a miss chance when the boss doesn't have a miss chance. Try this: a BBEG "scene" means that everyone deals max damage when (if) they hit. PCs get excited about dealing every drop of damage that they've designed their characters to do, and fearful of just how much damage the BBEG is designed to do.

 

[Olrox17]

Sure, but if you’re ok with it anyway then what’s the screen actually doing? Why not roll in the open, and still fudge the results?

Ok, so take the same scenario and change the DM’s questions to declarative statements. “I’m gonna change that crit to a regular hit” or “I’m gonna change that miss to a hit.” My point wasn’t about asking for permission, but about being honest with your players about what you’re doing and why.

I see where you're coming from, but that kind of honest declaration would disrupt the flow of the game for me. I don't need to know, heck, I don't want to know when or which roll gets fudged.
Just like I don't want to know where the strong light and the epic music is coming from during the battle of Helm's Deep.

 

[Weiley31]

I think there shouldn't be Boss Monster's. The idea of a Boss Monster means I'm playing a video game. I prefer to present my players with a living world. If I wanted them to play a video game, I would tell them to go do that.

Emperor Palpatine confirmed a mook.

 

[Charlaquin]

I see where you're coming from, but that kind of honest declaration would disrupt the flow of the game for me. I don't need to know, heck, I don't want to know when or which roll gets fudged.

Ok, I get that. But there are other players at the table who might feel differently, and as such I think that “to fudge or not to fudge” and under what circumstances if any to do so should be something that is discussed and agreed upon by the whole group, instead of something that’s taken as a given by the DM.

Just like I don't want to know where the strong light and the epic music is coming from during the battle of Helm's Deep.

Oh, I absolutely want to know that! Understanding the craft behind the artwork doesn’t diminish my appreciation of the artwork itself. If anything, it enhances it! I can still suspend my disbelief and enjoy the illusion, but I enjoy it all the more for knowing how it was pulled off. I know that’s not to everyone’s liking though. Different strokes, which is again why I don’t think it’s appropriate for the DM to take fudging as a given. Find out how your players feel about it first!

 

[Olrox17]

Ok, I get that. But there are other players at the table who might feel differently, and as such I think that “to fudge or not to fudge” and under what circumstances if any to do so should be something that is discussed and agreed upon by the whole group, instead of something that’s taken as a given by the DM.

Sure. The importance of session zero can't be overstated. I would be the player saying that I'm totally ok with the DM fudging, but I'd want it to be seamless and unnoticeable. I'm ok with no fudging, i'm ok with full fudging, but I'm not ok with transparent, or "democratic" fudging.

Oh, I absolutely want to know that! Understanding the craft behind the artwork doesn’t diminish my appreciation of the artwork itself. If anything, it enhances it! I can still suspend my disbelief and enjoy the illusion, but I enjoy it all the more for knowing how it was pulled off. I know that’s not to everyone’s liking though. Different strokes, which is again why I don’t think it’s appropriate for the DM to take fudging as a given. Find out how your players feel about it first!

I personally had people talking to me during movies, explaining what was CGI and what wasn't, and that isn't fun to me. Takes me right out of the experience. Anyway, different strokes, indeed.

 

[Charlaquin]

I personally had people talking to me during movies, explaining what was CGI and what wasn't, and that isn't fun to me. Takes me right out of the experience. Anyway, different strokes, indeed.

Oh, yeah, that does sound pretty annoying. Those are things I would be interested to learn, but not while I’m in the middle of watching the movie.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

The players get four turns to one turn of the Big Bad Evil Guy. It's fine if, in a combat that lasts three or four rounds, each PC misses once or twice, because overall the party still does something interesting each turn.

I don't think the boss should miss with their attacks, or at the very least they should have an effect regardless of whether their attack hits. This was a common design conceit in 4e, but not in 5e.

Now, in traditional video game RPGs, the PCs and the boss (almost) always hit, unless someone is hit with a condition like blinded. On the other hand, in many action video games the boss will try to do something dangerous, but you can dodge or parry it. However, there's always a sense of the boss being dangerous, and the PCs having to pick the right tactics to survive, rather than just relying on luck of the dice.

What do you think? Should D&D boss monsters have more abilities that don't require a die roll to be threatening?

To be honest, uh....just stop trying to keep the PC's alive all the time so they can get to the BBEG.

I'm not saying you do this, but I have heard this same 'complaint' that the BBEG goes down far too fast. The most common solution given is to "beef up the bad guy and use lackey's". The problem with this is that it doesn't work most of the time. The REAL problem is that the Players get so used to "winning all the time" that if the BBEG fight does start to go against them and they loose/die...they scream bloody murder and accuse the DM of "cheating" or "deliberately killing their PC's" or otherwise creating a "no-win situation".

THAT is the core problem. Not that main villains loose in a few rounds. Make it so that death is VERY real every step of the way. If PC's can, and do, die from a fight with an engaged cave bear...so be it. If they die from a poison needle trap (sorry Blackleaf!)... so be it. Let death be an ACTUAL threat at all times (to varying degrees), and when the PC's get to the BBEG, they will be sweating bullets every round. I guarantee that!

Then, after a half dozen rounds, and the BBEG finally goes down...you will have a group of very, very happy players at your table. Why? Because they KNEW that, at any second, any round, something could happen to kill a PC. I mean, Gurdaak the Barbarian was killed several weeks ago with that Cave Bear, remember? And poor Blackleaf got stuck by that poison needle trap and died instantly! Do you think the DM is going to suddenly 'go easy on everyone' because it's the BBEG? Pffft! Not on your life!

So...stop "building encounters to challenge the PC's, but not kill them", and start "building to the world's internal logic and consistency"...and let the dice fall where they may...and suddenly, that 6 round battle with the BBEG is nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat, sweat-drenching horror!

Or keep doing it the 'normal way', and have the Players expect to win, and when you "over build the encounter to kill at least one PC"...you will have a group of very, very upset players at your table. Why? Because they KNEW you specifically put that power/spell/item on the bad guy in order to 'nullify' their PC's powers. They were expecting to win, becuase you have taught them that they will always 'win', or at least never 'really loose badly'. So the second they DO loose badly, at the BBEG, who happens to have every counter to their abilities...well, honestly, the DM has, effectively, "cheated" at the game. He isn't being fair anymore; he's specifically TRYING to mess with the PC's and Players.

Don't do that.

Sorry that was a bit "off track", but I honestly believe that the problem isn't that BBEG's go down so quickly; it's that the DM wants it to be a big epic fight, but to the players, it's "just the end fight". Nothing to worry about. Ergo, when they win in 6 rounds, its "ho-hum...that didn't take long", because, in their minds, there was never any real doubt. It's not exciting. It's not, well, anything to write home about. Have PC death be a constant, in-your-face, you could die at any second, type of thing throughout every game session....and you now have a COMPLETELY different mindset in your players.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Olrox17]

@pming But, if every single fight, trap and hazard is a life or death affair...what's so special about the BBEG fight? It's just another horrifyingly dangerous battle, like the dozen other battles the group had to deal with before the BBEG.
I'm not trying to demean your DMing style, I just never played in a game like yours and I'm genuinely curious. Life or death all the time, all the encounters: doesn't that get stressful after a while?