D&D General BBEGs shouldn't miss.

[Zsong]

Oh! Ok, gotcha. To me, that’s the kind of mistake that either comes from inexperience or over ambitious experimentation, both of which are things I’ll gladly forgive. Whether they deal with that by fudging the results or by calling for a mulligan on the whole encounter I’m not particularly bothered by either option, so long as they own the mistake and learn from it.

I don’t want t to know the mistake. I want the adventure to be fun and keep playing next week. It ruins it for me when the dm stops the game and tries to correct or apologizes for screwing up. Let him learn from the mistake and keep the adventure going. Don’t break the immersion.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t want t to know the mistake. I want the adventure to be fun and keep playing next week. It ruins it for me when the dm stops the game and tries to correct or apologizes for screwing up. Let him learn from the mistake and keep the adventure going. Don’t break the immersion.

Meh. Chances are, if the mistake was that bad, everyone already knows it was a mistake. Better to own up to it and move on than to try to cover it up or pretend it was intentional.

 

[prabe]

Like I said, inexperience or over-ambition. Either a new DM who just wanted to use a cool-sounding monster and didn’t realize it was way stronger than they thought it would be, or a DM who tried to homebrew something and accidentally made it way harder than they meant to - which could itself either have been the result of being new to home brewing monsters and not having a good feel for it yet, or of trying something really wild that even with your experience you couldn’t accurately predict.

EDIT: Or as @prabe points out, a DM who mis-evaluated third party material, which could come either from inexperience with evaluating and vetting third party material, or from said third party material being so out there the experienced DM didn’t know how to evaluate it but wanted to try it anyway.

It was more a combination of your description of me and your pre-edit post--I tried to reskin a third-party monster and ... almost TKed the party; which since I interpreted it as my fault--the monster ended up being waaay tougher than I intended, both because third-party product for 5E tends to be (because it actually follows the guidelines in the DMG, unlike WotC's own material) and because I screwed up reskinning it--I pulled my punches in the combat and apologized and we kept playing the next week.

 

[robus]

Part of the problem in my campaigns is that the players have put some build-effort into having their characters go early, so A) there's only so much I can do and B) I really don't want to negate their intentions, there. I mean, there are times when I could give the BBEG an extra +10 on init and between the character builds and my dice luck they'd still go last.

That sounds frustrating. My commiserations.

 

[prabe]

That sounds frustrating. My commiserations.

I'm used to my dice cacking spectacularly at me. It's what they do.

Except for when the stars are right and they decide THE PARTY MUST DIE. Which is just a different sort of cacking, I suppose.

 

[robus]

I'm used to my dice cacking spectacularly at me. It's what they do.

Except for when the stars are right and they decide THE PARTY MUST DIE. Which is just a different sort of cacking, I suppose.

Oh me too my attacks reliably miss, so a low initiative and a low attack took all the threat out of my BBEGs. Letting them move early helped a lot with at least the perception of threat.

 

[Quartz]

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

If you want. You're the DM.

There are Legendary Actions and Lair Actions but have you considered auras? For example, a powerful undead might have a necrotic aura that does some necrotic damage to anyone nearby. Of course, this should be reflected in the CR. And canny players should be able to learn of it beforehand and how to counter it. Another option is items like Fragarach, the Answerer - whenever you get hit, it strikes back. Again, CR should reflect this

 

[zarionofarabel]

I’m completely lost. What does any of this have to do with my post?

Absolutely nothing, apparently I replied to a reply that was neither meant for me nor based on something I posted, my bad!!!

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Yeah, I would have no problem with that as a player. Although as a DM, I probably wouldn’t include that ancient red dragon on the random encounter table if I wasn’t prepared to pit my players against it.

I think this is telling on DM "style". In my mind, the DM is never actually "pitting his players/PC's against it". The DM should have no "I" in the race; it's not the DM doing it...it's the various rules and subsystems of the game, and the understanding that the DM is there to run the game as a neutral arbiter and 'producer/director' (although that's not true either...but close...I guess he's more like a 'moderator of the free-form improv').

While I think I get what you mean, it always sounds weird for me to read when a DM says that it is "them" doing something "to the PC's". It's not...unless the DM doesn't use the rules or dice and just decides stuff on a whim. When I roll an Ancient Red Dragon random encounter that I placed there in the tables, and the PC's are low level, it's not ME who is "doing it to the Players' Characters". I only roll the dice and look at the table.

Another option is to have a vague plan in mind that if the dragon does randomly come up, for whatever reason it's not coming in hot and thus the PCs have a chance to talk or bribe their way out of the situation.

Then the choice is on the players/PCs as to whether they wanna fight the thing, as are the consequences if-when they do.

That's what the "NPC/Monster Reactions" table was used for back in Ye Olden' Editions. I don't think 5e has Reaction tables...does it? There is also the Surprise rules from Ye Olden' Editions; where the Red Dragon could be "surprised" and the PC's are not. This gives the PC's an opportunity to flee/hide or pre-emptively attack if they so choose. It is also worth noting that the Reaction Table were meant to be consulted more than once. Initially, upon first encounter. Then up to 2 more times, depending on circumstances. These secondary 'reaction' checks were also called "Morale Checks"; basically, particularly ferocious monsters (or things with no 'emotions', like Golems or Undead) would be more inclined (or always) to chose to continue to fight. Timid monsters would run away or surrender. All based primarily on dice rolls...unless the DM decided otherwise, of course.

Anyway, I think this is a case of "old school expectations of play" versus "new school expectations of play". In old school games, the DM sets up and runs adventures that are designed to KILL the PC's (fairly, mind you). In more modern, new school games, the DM sets up and runs adventures that are designed to CHALLENGE the PC's (...not necessarily fairly, imnsho). I much prefer the Old School style, obviously!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[dave2008]

Be that as it may, at no point did I say "you play like it's a video game and that's bad" or anything even remotely close. Hell, if you like playing like it's a video game and you enjoy it, that's a good thing!

Anyone ever see Player One? I think playing a campaign where things worked like a video game with saves and such might be fun! As a bonus, if a player decided to leave the game partway in, I could have a hilarious scene where they accidentally saved themselves to death!

That is not the point.

The term has a negative connotation (at least in these circles) no matter what you intended. You were ignorant of that fact, so I explained it you.

PS Just trying to be helpful