D&D General BBEGs shouldn't miss.

[el-remmen]

My players expect met to run a fun game for them where the ultimate outcome may be unknown, but fun is had upon arriving there. Thus, if I have to give a final boss extra legendary powers or a cool lair effect on the fly to challenge them more because they had a too easy time of the rest of the dungeon, or I have to strip him of some power because of the opposite, or if I decide to forgo a critical hit and say it is a regular hit because by happenstance the dice have been swinging my way way and against the players for multiple rounds, or any various choices I make in order to achieve that fun for all involved, that is what matters to me.

I can understand people wanting to avoid any kind of fudging or sense of deception and can respect that, but a DM makes countless choices that influence the flow and outcome of the game that the PCs don't have any say in or even sense of. . . Personally, I'd prefer a DM who never fudges over a DM who fudges too much, but I'd prefer one who fudges judiciously to one who never does.

 

[Don Durito]

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.

If I'll fudge the dice to save you one session, then if you're character dies in a later session then it's because I chose for him to die. (I've already established that I'll fudge to save characters).

I don't want that. I don't wan't to have to deal with that.

So I won't fudge. And if I did make a giant mistake I'd say so openly. Because I want it to be clear that if you do die, then it's fair. It's not me doing so because I've arbritraily decided that one PC needs to die in the big battle to make it feel suitably dramatic, or because I have some kind of preference for one player over another.

 

[prabe]

If I'll fudge the dice to save you one session, then if you're character dies in a later session then it's because I chose for him to die.

I don't want that. I don't wan't to have to deal with that.

So I won't fudge. And if I did make a giant mistake I'd say so openly. Because I want it to be clear that if you do die, then it's fair. It's not me doing so because I've arbritraily decided that one PC needs to die in the big battle to make it feel suitably dramatic, or because I have some kind of preference for one player over another.

I won't fudge in a way that makes things worse for the PCs. If I roll four crits against the same character--any character--in one combat there's a good chance at least one of those will be a normal hit.

 

[Don Durito]

I won't fudge in a way that makes things worse for the PCs. If I roll four crits against the same character--any character--in one combat there's a good chance at least one of those will be a normal hit.

So how do you decide which PCs to kill?

 

[prabe]

So how do you decide which PCs to kill?

Generally it's the ones who know what they're getting into and do stupid things, or the ones who want heroic ends--or at least to go out in a blaze of glory.

TBH, I've had one PC die since I've been running 5E, and he got in way (way, way) over his head and then made a tactical error.

 

[Dausuul]

It’s also handy when you are a new DM or even an experienced DM that realizes you screwed up creating an encounter. That can happen even with experienced DM’s that are creating new monsters with new abilities.

This right here.

I pretty much never fudged in 4E. I didn't have to. When I built an encounter, it worked how I meant it to work and it was as tough as I meant it to be. But 4E was the only edition where the encounter math was reliable enough to let me do that.

(And frankly, I have less trouble with my own homebrew monsters than I do when using monsters straight out of the book. 5E CRs are all over the place, the encounter building guidelines are very shaky, and at higher levels they go completely to hell.)

 

[Iry]

Better to live with the guilt of a fudge, than wiping out half the party because of your poor encounter design.
Consider it a tool to correct your mistakes as a DM. Not the mistakes of your players.
Eventually you won't need to use it at all.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Better to live with the guilt of a fudge, than wiping out half the party because of your poor encounter design.
Consider it a tool to correct your mistakes as a DM. Not the mistakes of your players.
Eventually you won't need to use it at all.

Or...just don't "design an encounter for the PC's" in the first place and not have to feel any guilt.
That's a pretty good option...


^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[CleverNickName]

Between any or all of the following:

• Legendary Actions
• Lair Actions
• Getting 2 or more attacks with each Attack action
• Reinforcements arriving every 1dX rounds

...I've never had a need for a rule to ensure boss monsters never miss.

 

[Don Durito]

This right here.

I pretty much never fudged in 4E. I didn't have to. When I built an encounter, it worked how I meant it to work and it was as tough as I meant it to be. But 4E was the only edition where the encounter math was reliable enough to let me do that.

(And frankly, I have less trouble with my own homebrew monsters than I do when using monsters straight out of the book. 5E CRs are all over the place, the encounter building guidelines are very shaky, and at higher levels they go completely to hell.)

13th Age has that level of mechanical tightness. In fact it improves on 4E in some key ways. Mooks in 13th age feel more meaningful then 4E minions and you can use double and triple strength mooks to beef them up in further. And you get all the monster maths right there on the back of the GM screen.

I'll probably go back to it after I finish my current 5E game.

(Although, in some ways, I'll admit I'm enjoying the unpredicatability of 5E, it keeps things from feeling scripted - and when I go back to 13th Age I will deliberately mess with some of the monster math to keep some of that unpredictabilty.)