D&D General BBEGs shouldn't miss.

[Monayuris]

As far as fudging goes. I don't do it as a DM. And I don't want it as a player.

I've been playing D&D for 30+ years. I can tell when a DM is fudging. I don't really think you need as much experience as I have to tell. Your players will figure it out.

If you have set your session zero up such that your players know you will fudge, then everything is fine. But if you propose a fair game and you still fudge, your players will figure it out.

The problem with unwanted fudging is that it eliminates player agency. The idea that my choices as a player have meaning. I may actually choose to put my character in a very dangerous situation (out of role-playing or out of just wanting to sacrifice my PC for someone else). If the DM then fudges such that my character survives it robs me of my sacrifice.

If I carelessly open a chest and the subsequent poison needle trap attack is fudged to be a miss, then I'm robbed of the consequence of foolishly not checking for traps.

Again, If you fudge and you think you are getting away with it... you aren't. Your players are likely smart enough to figure it out. Now they may not mind it, but if you think you are a DM that can fudge effortlessly and without even a whiff of it in your players minds, you are misguided.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I design every encounter from scratch. But I can see the appeal of a module approach.

I think you misunderstand my meaning.

When I say "design an encounter for the PC's", I'm talking about when a DM thinks "I'm going to make an encounter where the PC's fight a tough monster". Then the DM looks at the PC's Levels, Races, Spells, Skills, Classes, etc, and thinks "Ok, they have no cleric, so I'll avoid Undead. They also have two thieves and one 'shadow warlock' who's also sneaky. Hmmm...I'll put it in a big room, with large round pillars spaced evenly, 10' apart or so, in order to give them places to hide. Lets see...a good monster would be a Medusa".

Effectively, the DM is "building the encounter to suit the strengths/weaknesses of his particular group of PC's".

This is, to me, a bad method of running a campaign. But that's just me; I'd rather have the ruins already be known for housing "a horrible beast that none who have encountered have lived to tell the tale!", and then leave it completely up to the Players to decide what they want to do. Outright avoid the ruins... research the ruins for a clue to what monster might lair there... cast spells to gain information, etc. That way it's up to the Players to make decisions for their PC's based on "the world fiction" and not "what the DM designs as a challenge for us".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[pming]

Hiya!

And yet, I do both. Most of my encounters are meant to be challenges. But my players know that some encounters are not meant to be beaten but avoided at all costs.

I am an old school DM with a modern feel. I really like the idea of challenge, but I also like to keep my player on their toes. My philosophy is this:" If the players can beat everything; how can I keep them on their toes...?"

A decent enough approach I guess. The issue I have is that it still pits the players thinking "Ok, is this a 'we can win this' encounter, or is this one that Helldritch has built so we can't beat it and we need to avoid it?". The problem comes if they guess wrong; then they die. It is entirely your fault at that point because you specifically "built the encounter" that way. They were used to 'challenges', and now, because they guessed wrong, they all die.

But if a DM doesn't "build encounters for the PC's", then this entire thing is avoided (re: the 'keep them on their toes'). The Players and their PC's will always be 'on their toes', because they know the DM isn't going to do anything for or against them; he's just running the world. If the PC's don't take precautions and just decide "Yeah, whatever. Enchanters are always exaggerating. It's just a bunny. Go on Boris, cut it's head off...", well, maybe next time listen to what the NPC is telling you is a deadly, horrible beast. Or at least look into it and do some verification, research or info gathering...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Zsong]

Hiya!

I think you misunderstand my meaning.

When I say "design an encounter for the PC's", I'm talking about when a DM thinks "I'm going to make an encounter where the PC's fight a tough monster". Then the DM looks at the PC's Levels, Races, Spells, Skills, Classes, etc, and thinks "Ok, they have no cleric, so I'll avoid Undead. They also have two thieves and one 'shadow warlock' who's also sneaky. Hmmm...I'll put it in a big room, with large round pillars spaced evenly, 10' apart or so, in order to give them places to hide. Lets see...a good monster would be a Medusa".

Effectively, the DM is "building the encounter to suit the strengths/weaknesses of his particular group of PC's".

This is, to me, a bad method of running a campaign. But that's just me; I'd rather have the ruins already be known for housing "a horrible beast that none who have encountered have lived to tell the tale!", and then leave it completely up to the Players to decide what they want to do. Outright avoid the ruins... research the ruins for a clue to what monster might lair there... cast spells to gain information, etc. That way it's up to the Players to make decisions for their PC's based on "the world fiction" and not "what the DM designs as a challenge for us".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

That to me is a good dm.

 

[Helldritch]

Hiya!

A decent enough approach I guess. The issue I have is that it still pits the players thinking "Ok, is this a 'we can win this' encounter, or is this one that Helldritch has built so we can't beat it and we need to avoid it?". The problem comes if they guess wrong; then they die. It is entirely your fault at that point because you specifically "built the encounter" that way. They were used to 'challenges', and now, because they guessed wrong, they all die.

But if a DM doesn't "build encounters for the PC's", then this entire thing is avoided (re: the 'keep them on their toes'). The Players and their PC's will always be 'on their toes', because they know the DM isn't going to do anything for or against them; he's just running the world. If the PC's don't take precautions and just decide "Yeah, whatever. Enchanters are always exaggerating. It's just a bunny. Go on Boris, cut it's head off...", well, maybe next time listen to what the NPC is telling you is a deadly, horrible beast. Or at least look into it and do some verification, research or info gathering...

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Fair enough question. In case of random encounters, it will be very very very clear that the encounter is not winnable through conflict. My voice will change into what one of my players calls:" The DM's voice of dread".

As for the other type of unwinnable encounters...
These are extremely rare. The encounter will be script is such a way that the players will be safe unless they act reckless. And even then, they will have time to flee.

What you should not forget is that my players know me and I have known them (well, most of them) for almost 20 years (and some for 45 years...). Only one is relatively new with a mere 3 years... But we've known each other for much longer.

So the guessing part, though still possible, is extremely unlikely to happen. Even in those adventures I wrote myself and lend to fellow DMs in my area, these few encounters are well detailed on how to approach them do as to avoid an unnecessary TPK.

But the mere fact that such encounters exist, makes the world more believable. And as the group gets more and more renown, it shows in the encounters. Many times bandits come and try to rob the player only to have one of them recognize the players and yell:" Flee! These are the xxxxxxx! We stand no chance!". It is good for the ego when you are the unbeatable foe for others.

 

[Nefermandias]

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?

Yes, that's why 4e boss monsters usually came with an auto damage aura, potentially with a detrimental rider effect.

It's an easy enough concept to implement in your own home game and it's best used in conjunction with Lair Actions, Legendary Actions and Mythic creature's.

 

[Iry]

Hiya!

I think you misunderstand my meaning.

Entirely possible!

When I say "design an encounter for the PC's", I'm talking about when a DM thinks "I'm going to make an encounter where the PC's fight a tough monster". Then the DM looks at the PC's Levels, Races, Spells, Skills, Classes, etc, and thinks "Ok, they have no cleric, so I'll avoid Undead. They also have two thieves and one 'shadow warlock' who's also sneaky. Hmmm...I'll put it in a big room, with large round pillars spaced evenly, 10' apart or so, in order to give them places to hide. Lets see...a good monster would be a Medusa".

This is, to me, a bad method of running a campaign. But that's just me; I'd rather have the ruins already be known for housing "a horrible beast that none who have encountered have lived to tell the tale!", and then leave it completely up to the Players to decide what they want to do. Outright avoid the ruins... research the ruins for a clue to what monster might lair there... cast spells to gain information, etc. That way it's up to the Players to make decisions for their PC's based on "the world fiction" and not "what the DM designs as a challenge for us".

I'm not sure what you mean. Why not do both? Set up the fight with the pillars and medusa to make sure the battle will be mechanically interesting for your party, and then spread rumors and clues about a horrible beast so that the party can engage, avoid, or gather intelligence as they see fit. Knowing the battle has pillars and a medusa ahead of time lets you foreshadow the dangers and leave clues for the party to discover. And if the party decides to not get involved, there may or may not be consequences, but it's ultimately their choice.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Just think of how epic it can be: Your PCs slugged through a huge dungeon, survived countless traps and deadly monsters, to arrive at the BBEG and then butchered it without taking a single point of damage themselves. Maybe because the BBEG missed once (or twice), or maybe they successfully paralyzed or stunned it in the first round.

That's a good story. You will all remember that 10 years from now.

I write this as a DM: Encounters don't always have to be a close call. It is much more important that the players (and their PCs) believe that this BBEG was capable of inflicting massive damage, and they got away with it. They will still feel accomplished, and that matters for the players. As long as the DM can feel accomplished by delivering a good story (instead of nearly killing the players again), everyone will have a good time.

Seriously, too many DMs think that they must inflict serious amounts of damage onto the PCs in every encounter, or else it is not an interesting encounter. That's a load of BS.

 

[Olrox17]

Just think of how epic it can be: Your PCs slugged through a huge dungeon, survived countless traps and deadly monsters, to arrive at the BBEG and then butchered it without taking a single point of damage themselves. Maybe because the BBEG missed once (or twice), or maybe they successfully paralyzed or stunned it in the first round.

That's a good story. You will all remember that 10 years from now.

I write this as a DM: Encounters don't always have to be a close call. It is much more important that the players (and their PCs) believe that this BBEG was capable of inflicting massive damage, and they got away with it. They will still feel accomplished, and that matters for the players. As long as the DM can feel accomplished by delivering a good story (instead of nearly killing the players again), everyone will have a good time.

Seriously, too many DMs think that they must inflict serious amounts of damage onto the PCs in every encounter, or else it is not an interesting encounter. That's a load of BS.

Personally, I don't think that's a good story at all. In my couple decades of playing D&D, as a DM and as a player, I did experience BBEG curbstomping sometimes. It's good for a laugh in the moment, but it's not memorable at all, I hardly remember the details of such happenings.

The truly memorable BBEG encounters are the ones that the party almost lost, but managed to win through sheer luck or formidable improvised tactics. I could provide a detailed list of such epic encounters that fill my heart with pride and joy to this day.

 

[R_J_K75]

Let the dice fall where they may for good or for ill for both players and the DM (BBEG). I rarely if ever fudge rolls, that's not to say I haven't done it, but not in a long time. I think that once the players enemies auto hit or hit on a next constant basis the DM loses their trust and their emersion in the game and in the world. OTOH if the DM is constantly trying to find ways to save the players from certain doom then the game and world seem like there's no risk of failure and dying. I roll in the open for attacks, not so much for other things. I had a player say to me that even though I always seem to roll very well on attacks that there still seems as though there was little sense of true danger, as in some battles seemed easier than they should have been and they won some that they probably shouldn't have. I think that was me then and still now figuring out how to manage 5Es increased survivability; which I've come to the conclusion lies in knowing the rules well and sticking to them, which unfortunately I don't do either relatively well.