Challenging yourself in combat (as a DM)

[shilsen]

There are regularly threads on this board about ways in which one can challenge the PCs during combat encounters, and after reading the last couple of them, I was wondering how often people also aim for the opposite, namely challenging yourself as a DM during combat.

As a player, my favorite type of combat is a challenging - or well-nigh impossible - encounter which my PC and the others manage to defeat through intelligent tactics and creative use of resources rather than because they clearly outclass the opposition. And I like to do the same, or a close approximation thereof, with my NPCs when DMing. I’ll often create combat encounters which the PCs should technically be able to defeat handily, and then try to use creative tactics to make sure that the encounter works out to be truly challenging. I find that this approach make combat as exciting for me as a DM as are my favorite combats as a player, since I know that unless I can play my NPCs really intelligently, it will be a boring walkover of a combat. Plus, since I’m generally a better tactician than my players and roll all my dice in the open, it allows me to really take the gloves off and do my best to take them down (as the NPCs - in character - are trying to do), without having to worry about a TPK or something like that.

For example, a couple sessions ago in my Eberron campaign, the party of six 6th lvl PCs (36 pt-buy abilities, higher than normal wealth & magic, a slightly modified action pt system which benefits the PCs more than the regular one) was due to be jumped by an assassin and mercenary bodyguard. The pair would beat the PCs down but not kill them (campaign reasons) and I hoped they would be recurring villains. My original plan was to make the NPCs 9th lvl and 7th lvl, to ensure that they would be able to provide a very solid challenge and escape. But then I figured that would be too boring and easy, and dropped them to 7th and 6th, i.e. an EL 8.5 encounter (which the PCs should technically be able to handle quite easily). And I had a whole lot more fun handing the PCs their collective asses, leaving three unconscious, all badly wounded, and the only reason that they didn’t have multiple deaths if not a TPK being that the NPCs needed to get information and make a point, and a PC made a very opportune offer to parley when things were going badly. I enjoyed the combat, had the players on the edges of their seats throughout, and now have the PCs simultaneously scared of and really pissed at these NPCs (and seeking revenge), as I’d wanted. I doubt it would have been all of the above if I hadn’t made it harder on myself as a DM.

So, after all that rambling, I’m wondering if other people do this. Do you make it harder on yourself and the NPCs, and as a result, find the eventual combats more interesting/exciting? Or am I just nuts? Not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course

 

[Crimson_Manticore]

I Like it!

I had never really thought of things from that angle. I’ve had problems in the past with “over-buffing” my villains in order to provide a truly challenging encounter, and it too often ends up as a killer. I like the idea of putting the creative design energy into the tactics and setting of the encounter rather than finding the most deadly class / spell / ability combination for the opponent.

How about some examples? How do you go about designing a challenging encounter while using “underpowered” opponents?

 

[shilsen]

How about some examples? How do you go about designing a challenging encounter while using “underpowered” opponents?

A simple thing I focus on, which my players/PCs often fail to do, is controlling positions on the battlefield. If you can prevent enemies from combining their forces while you are able to do so, half the battle is won. If the NPCs include spellcasters, they often use spells which affect the PCs' mobility and vision rather than going directly after their hit points. If there are few or no spellcasters, I often use trip attacks and readied actions to mess up the PCs' movement. Grappling works well if there are more NPCs than PCs, or if one has a PC cut off from the others for a round. If there are more PCs than NPCs, the latter should keep moving (even if just a 5 ft step) to make sure that some PCs are giving them cover from others.

In the combat I mentioned in my first post, the battle took place in the inn the PCs were staying at. The two NPCs were a 7th lvl cleric (trickery and and a hobgoblin fighter (first spiked chain-wielder I ever used). The cleric started off by casting doomtide (from CD) - which creates an area of darkness which can also daze those who step into it - in such a manner as to divide the hallway the PCs were in and force them to either split up or risk stepping into the doomtide. Then he focused on incapacitating those who got to the NPC pair first (using the command spell to get someone to urinate really messes him up ). The fighter stuck by his side and used the chain's reach to keep tripping and disarming enemies who threatened his boss. Once some of the PCs did get close and do some damage, the cleric used a confusion spell to seriously hamper their co-ordination.

 

[IronWolf]

I think this is a great way to run combats as a DM. It is way too easy to simply throw high CR level creatures at the party as a challenge. I like to have my NPC's use the terrain to their advantage, seek out cover when possible, higher elevation if the terrain warrants it, etc. Smart use of spells, like you mentioned in your post can work quite well too. I've been known to use ghost sound to turn some of the party's attention away from the real threat as they attempt to prevent an attack from a direction it really isn't coming from. All great tactics!

I hope this thread continues with examples from other DM's more tactical combat tactics. Could prove quite interesting!

 

[RangerWickett]

A good fight has:

1. An interesting opponent.
2. A reason for fighting (preferably beyond 'survival').
3. An interesting location.

'Interesting' can mean visually cool, or maybe interesting to roleplay with, or it can also mean interesting tactically. Villains who can only be hurt by some type of substance, or who use hit and run tactics or swarm tactics, are interesting. Locations with lots of cover tend to be very interesting, because they provide for natural ebb and flow to combat. If you're hiding behind good cover, you force your opponent to take a risk in order to rush you.

If you ever played D&D minis, then played Star Wars minis, the Star Wars game is much more interesting because you can hide behind low cover, instead of just running up and wailing on each other.

 

[Dog Moon]

I love using tactics. It makes the encounters more challenging. I can't really think of any examples off hand, though I did want to mention one thing: tactics should not always be used. I remember once the DM in a group I played in took a small group of creatures with an Int of like 1 or 2, yet they used highly skilled tactics. Sometimes a challenge for a DM in combat can be to NOT use tactics if they are too used to using it. Except in situations like that, I enjoy being a player when the DM uses tactics [Makes it more realistic and challenging] and my players enjoy it when I use tactics for the same reason.

 

[shilsen]

I did want to mention one thing: tactics should not always be used. I remember once the DM in a group I played in took a small group of creatures with an Int of like 1 or 2, yet they used highly skilled tactics. Sometimes a challenge for a DM in combat can be to NOT use tactics if they are too used to using it.

Can't argue with that. I always try to keep in mind that I should use tactics appropriate to the NPCs and not just what would be the most expedient for me as a DM to use. But anything other than a mindless creature should use some tactics (a pack of wolves, for example, will use flanking and team up on enemies), but the level of sophistication will vary. Of course, once in a while you can throw in mindless creatures with an intelligent commander, which can catch your party on the wrong foot. Like skeletons/zombies instructed to use tower shields to gain total cover and prevent turning

 

[Rel]

I'm a big fan of this kind of thing when running the "easy" combats against my players. I like it primarily because tactics is one of my favorite things about the game and running the bad guys lets me try out all sorts of varied situations with different goals, abilities and terrain.

As mentioned, I always try to restrain myself to the level of tactics available to the adversary in question. And I also try to keep in mind what the NPC or monster is trying to achieve. They may wish to simply survive and escape. But it could be that they want to kill a particular character, do as much damage as possible, destroy or steal an item the party carries or all sorts of other things. So I try to sit for a few minutes considering the abilities, intellect and goals of the enemies for each encounter before the game session starts.

One quick tidbit for those wanting to employ this technique more is that an enemy with the initiative has a BIG advantage over one that doesn't. I don't just mean that they rolled higher on the Initiative, I mean they picked the fight with the PC's and determined its location and circumstances. Also, if they lead off with some sort of area of effect spell (either damage or area denial like Web, Entangle or Darkness) then they set the tone of the battle and the PC's find themselves reacting instead of acting for the first few rounds.

In many ways I think this has taught me to be a better player (from a tactical standpoint, although it might have given a slight boost to my roleplaying skills from the fact that I have to portray so many varied goals and intentions). What I've found is that in those first few moments of combat, the best thing you can do is try to disrupt the enemy plan rather than throw up protections to "buff" yourself. Casting Stoneskin and Shield will certainly make you more likely to survive the combat but casting Glitterdust on the enemy formation will help your team regain the initiative.

In other words, the best defense is often a good offense. And this philosophy applies to intelligent NPC's who get ambushed by the party as well.

 

[rumblehed]

territory

I've always been a firm believer that dealing with a creature on the creature's territory enhances the difficulty of the creature. Aerial and underwater combat usually require special preparations for a party of even mid-level, and creatures encountered in those types of situations rarely have the movement problems facing the PC's.

 

[Tortoise]

There are regularly threads on this board about ways in which one can challenge the PCs during combat encounters, and after reading the last couple of them, I was wondering how often people also aim for the opposite, namely challenging yourself as a DM during combat.

As a player, my favorite type of combat is a challenging - or well-nigh impossible - encounter which my PC and the others manage to defeat through intelligent tactics and creative use of resources rather than because they clearly outclass the opposition. And I like to do the same, or a close approximation thereof, with my NPCs when DMing. I’ll often create combat encounters which the PCs should technically be able to defeat handily, and then try to use creative tactics to make sure that the encounter works out to be truly challenging. I find that this approach make combat as exciting for me as a DM as are my favorite combats as a player, since I know that unless I can play my NPCs really intelligently, it will be a boring walkover of a combat. Plus, since I’m generally a better tactician than my players and roll all my dice in the open, it allows me to really take the gloves off and do my best to take them down (as the NPCs - in character - are trying to do), without having to worry about a TPK or something like that.

For example, a couple sessions ago in my Eberron campaign, the party of six 6th lvl PCs (36 pt-buy abilities, higher than normal wealth & magic, a slightly modified action pt system which benefits the PCs more than the regular one) was due to be jumped by an assassin and mercenary bodyguard. The pair would beat the PCs down but not kill them (campaign reasons) and I hoped they would be recurring villains. My original plan was to make the NPCs 9th lvl and 7th lvl, to ensure that they would be able to provide a very solid challenge and escape. But then I figured that would be too boring and easy, and dropped them to 7th and 6th, i.e. an EL 8.5 encounter (which the PCs should technically be able to handle quite easily). And I had a whole lot more fun handing the PCs their collective asses, leaving three unconscious, all badly wounded, and the only reason that they didn’t have multiple deaths if not a TPK being that the NPCs needed to get information and make a point, and a PC made a very opportune offer to parley when things were going badly. I enjoyed the combat, had the players on the edges of their seats throughout, and now have the PCs simultaneously scared of and really pissed at these NPCs (and seeking revenge), as I’d wanted. I doubt it would have been all of the above if I hadn’t made it harder on myself as a DM.

So, after all that rambling, I’m wondering if other people do this. Do you make it harder on yourself and the NPCs, and as a result, find the eventual combats more interesting/exciting? Or am I just nuts? Not that the two are mutually exclusive, of course

Spot on. I love doing this. I work the other way as well, with tougher critters, but the most fun is the encounters with weaker or nearly even opposition using tactics and the surroundings to challenge the PCs.