DM Tricks to Challenge Tough PCs with Weaker Enemies

[Slife]

I think it's because in Eberron there aren't many high level opponents for the PCs.

 

[Stalker0]

Sure, the fights are hard, challenging and "lethal" (of course, your PC's can't die) and that's generally a good thing. But they are also often furiously short. Because you put all the effort in offensive power and I can't quite understand that.

I think especially at higher levels a powerful offensive really is the best defense. When your playing at levels where one spell can mean game over, you want to deal as much damage to the party as possible. First, you need to make them feel threatened, so they get a good sense of victory if they win. But second, it helps keep the badguy alive. If the cleric is forced to heal his buddy instead of casting UBER spell X, that's a big help. Actions are your most precious currency at high levels, forcing the party to use theirs to help each other if generally the best strategy you can come up with.

 

[Gold Roger]

I think especially at higher levels a powerful offensive really is the best defense. When your playing at levels where one spell can mean game over, you want to deal as much damage to the party as possible. First, you need to make them feel threatened, so they get a good sense of victory if they win. But second, it helps keep the badguy alive. If the cleric is forced to heal his buddy instead of casting UBER spell X, that's a big help. Actions are your most precious currency at high levels, forcing the party to use theirs to help each other if generally the best strategy you can come up with.

Oh, I don't advocate a complete lake of offense. But I've played higher level as well. Good defense helps, because then that 1 spell isn't so likely to outright end the combat (either direction).

PC's tend to build for power output so much, that I feel it's better the opponents are the opposite, lest every combat turns into a 6-12 second firestorm that completely obliberates at least one side of the combat, but not rarely some PC's as well.

 

[shilsen]

Looks like your strategy for a challenging fight is as much power for as little HD as possible.

I can't say I can really agree with that. I've been reading your story for some time (sadly don't have the time anymore) and while it's highly enjoyable and I usually agree with you on good design, it can be seen there to: Most of your hand-crafted opponents are paper tigers.

Sure, the fights are hard, challenging and "lethal" (of course, your PC's can't die) and that's generally a good thing. But they are also often furiously short. Because you put all the effort in offensive power and I can't quite understand that.

Why underline how you challenge the PC's with "low CR" opponents when in the end it doesn't matter. All you show is that the CR and EL system can't allways be an accurate indicator of an opponents challenge. In what way is an combat that takes out half the party below their challenge level outside of pure mathematics and a strange sense of pride on beating those mathematics (this may come of as an attack. Please understand that this is meant as constructive critique).

FLAMEWAR!!!

I kid, I kid. And your point is well-taken. There's actually one primary reason that I use lower level enemies most of the time, and Slife got it. With my campaign being set in Eberron and mostly Sharn-based, a lot of the time there just isn't any possibility of enemies that are close to the PCs' level. So, in order to keep the combats exciting, I just make them more effective.

That's also linked to the high offense aspect. With the PCs generally being higher level than their enemies and the combination of PCs (five PCs, three primary casters and one close to primary caster) having very high offensive power, most enemies can't survive more than 3-4 rds of damage from them. So to challenge the PCs, they usually have to be able to put out a lot of damage really fast.

Maybe your idea of encounter design is so hard to understand for me because I've taken the exactly opposite approach. I've found the best way to challenge my players is to create higher HD/CR opponents that are build for durability and style far more than raw power.

Fair enough, but it's only rarely an option for me, as noted above.

And with this, we come to my second point of disagreement.

You say putting a scare into the players with higher CR creatures is easier-no contest there. But that does by no way mean challenging them with those creatures is easier.

Quite the opposite is true, especially if you don't want to have a safety net in your game that keeps PC's from dying.

I see your point. I stand corrected (well, sit corrected, since I'm lazy).

I've gone thrugh a lot of TPK's, total defeats of the PC's and more dead PC's than you can hit with a fireball till I've learned it. Luckily my group didn't mind character creation.

A well done higher CR/EL encounter that puts the players on the edge without more than one death/PC going down is just as hard to craft as a similar encounter with lower hd opponents. The difference is that this encounter takes longer, as the opponents are far more durable. In my more recent campaigns there was rarely a battle that lasted less than 8 to 10 rounds.

Interesting. Can you pop up an example or two?

I don't want to mark your approach as badwrongfun. I just believe that by just looking at one end of the challenge spectrum you rob yourself and your players of a fair amount of extra fun. I know that you are sometimes using NPC's of a far higher CR. But whenever you did it was pretty much out of the book, optimised for power. And it either showed in the number of PC's going down, or they had some extra help for this encounter.

Point taken. I doubt I'll have much opportunity to experiment with the other end of the spectrum that you mention, but I'll keep it in mind.

Or maybe I just felt a bit Pood because your post felt like my approach was made out as "lesser"

That wasn't really the intent, though I'll admit it's generally less interesting for me as a DM. But maybe I should try messing around with that approach when I have the chance. Thanks for the comments. Yeah, yeah - I know. I'm lousy at getting irritated at a post

Anyway, this thread wasn't started to help my campaign, but rather to throw up some ideas that less experienced DMs or those who do have trouble challenging PCs with weaker enemies could see some of the tactics others use. And I have to say there's some very handy stuff posted thus far.

 

[Darklone]

One more thing I like to do... though it's not exactly lowering the CR. I give NPCs less than their usual equipment and calculate their XPs a bit lower.

That helps with loot. And the players have something to chomp hitpoints away.

 

[Gold Roger]

FLAMEWAR!!!

Weeeee!

Can I fling poo?

Interesting. Can you pop up an example or two?

Well, one thing I generally do is to pretty much profesionally disoptimise my NPC's, with the justification that most people of higher level aren't made out to be ultimate killing maschines, even the worst villains.

Also most propably didn't get so far because they jumped into every battle guns blazing, the way PC's do, but because they chase their goals with persistency, learned many fields, picked their targets well, trained hard and especially know when and how to quit.
Technically, this means the following:

-Most NPC's don't have the kind of atributes PC's might carry around. An archmage might be damn intelligent, but his other attributes may well be average or worse. A mage that started with the following stats Str 8, Dex 10, Con 10, Wis 10, Int 15, Cha 8 might still reach a very high level, if he's a talented and ambitious mage that actually uses that clever head on his shoulder for things other than total arcane destruction.

-Most people never peak out in their chosen class because of a simple lack of potential. Unlike PC's, that can advance up to level 20 in their chosen field, the wizard above might find at the age of 27 that he doesn't get any further in his arcane studies, even though he's just learned the fourth degree of arcane might (which is still pretty good in the arcane academies, most of his generation never got past third)

-While they might not have such a good linear advancement as PC's, they might find broadening their skill far more usefull than PC's might. Thus I often have my NPC's do something PC's rarely ever do.
I call it nonsynergenic multiclassing. The names programm, as NPC's will take two or more classes that barely add to each others strength and then pit them against PC's the level of one of their classes. That way, the opponents have far more hit points and far better saves than might be expected.

One example for nonsynergetic multiclassing was a dretch sorcerer 3 that I've pitted against a first/second level group. That was the best fight at that level I've ever had and yet none of the PC's died.

Another example in the same campaign one level later was at the end of the burning plague

Spoiler

the orc ceric I've modified. I've reduced his attributes, but added barbarian levels. He fought the PC's to standstill with his spells, then, once his spell had almost run out, raged, fought through his whole rage and then once the rage ended he healed himself once, before finally dying

. Granted, that encounter cost one PC his life, but that player loses PC's more freguently than we played, no matter what I did.

Our example wizard might take various paths once he finds he can't advance as wizard anymore. He might turn his considerable mind to clockworks and mechanisms as well as some more shadowy interests, taking levels in rogue. Or maybe he joins a monastery for soulsearching, not really gaining a lot from his new monk levels, but hey, some extra speed, knowledge skillranks, HP and great saves! Or he wants to travel the world, see more of the wild and become an archeologist, taking ranger levels. If you use NPC levels, those are great as well.

-I like how everyone always asumed that every NPC is at all times ready for a lethal showdown combat as every spellcaster only memorises combat spells (most for deadly attacks). If I had that kind of power I'd use most of it to protect my precious life, that of those close to me. Maybe the evil wizard casts mage armor trice per day on his 7 year old daughter? And my second priority would be convenience. Transportation spells, comfort spells, read mind won't work on captain planet, but on my minions and the simple people definitely.

Only then I'd be interested on some spells to incinerate my opponents. Even if I was a batlemage or crusader.

The same is true for magic items. Would really everyone have a unholy flaming dancing greatsword first on his christmas wishlist?

Likewise, while the rare warlord, adventurer and criminal might run around armored and heavily armed at all times, most other will propably wear only up to light armor and an elegant shortsword, rapier or concealed dagger at most times.

Gawadian dragonslayer is still challenging to a ragtag group of adventurers when he's underequiped out drinking with his buddies.


Of course, I also sometimes use the occasional battle crazed berserker, deadly and frail assassin, brilliant but foolish evocer or zealous crusader that uses the same modus operandi as your usual PC that yet somehow survived so far and mooks are an entirely different story.

But this is my usual approach to BBEG's, significant monsters and henchmen.

As you can see, my most important technique is nonsynergetic classing and mostly average attributes. This usually results in encounters that have a mightily lowered chance for the feared one-shot first round kill compered to encounters of een equal to or lower than the PC's CR.

 

[shilsen]

Weeeee!

Can I fling poo?

Silly Gold Roger - like you need to ask! Is there ever a bad time to throw poo?

Well, one thing I generally do is to pretty much profesionally disoptimise my NPC's, with the justification that most people of higher level aren't made out to be ultimate killing maschines, even the worst villains.

Hmmm - I'm actually noticing a fair number of similarities with things I often do, with both lower or higher level enemies. To wit:

-Most NPC's don't have the kind of atributes PC's might carry around. An archmage might be damn intelligent, but his other attributes may well be average or worse. A mage that started with the following stats Str 8, Dex 10, Con 10, Wis 10, Int 15, Cha 8 might still reach a very high level, if he's a talented and ambitious mage that actually uses that clever head on his shoulder for things other than total arcane destruction.

I generally use the standard elite array for NPCs with class levels, as per the MM, but since the PCs are in the 36-40 pt category of point buy, it's safe to say the NPCs are way short of the kind of attributes the PCs have.

-Most people never peak out in their chosen class because of a simple lack of potential.

Definitely. I think this is a significant part of the design concept behind Eberron, actually, with PCs being the very rare people who have literally unlimited potential, which is why they keep advancing in classes, while others are limited in potential. Which goes to explain why you can have a 10 year war veteran who's going to be Ftr4 for all of his life, while the comparatively less experienced PC is shooting up towards the double digits.

-While they might not have such a good linear advancement as PC's, they might find broadening their skill far more usefull than PC's might. Thus I often have my NPC's do something PC's rarely ever do.
I call it nonsynergenic multiclassing. The names programm, as NPC's will take two or more classes that barely add to each others strength and then pit them against PC's the level of one of their classes. That way, the opponents have far more hit points and far better saves than might be expected.

I haven't done this that much, but I do use it at times, more often with NPC classes. So the PCs might go up against someone who's got a couple of levels of expert, aristocrat, adept or warrior to supplement their levels in PC classes. I don't think the PCs beat up a commoner yet, though Nameless (the alienist) did one Disintegrate an Expert4. It's sad when you take more HD of damage than you have hit pts

One example for nonsynergetic multiclassing was a dretch sorcerer 3 that I've pitted against a first/second level group. That was the best fight at that level I've ever had and yet none of the PC's died.

Another example in the same campaign one level later was at the end of the burning plague

Spoiler

the orc ceric I've modified. I've reduced his attributes, but added barbarian levels. He fought the PC's to standstill with his spells, then, once his spell had almost run out, raged, fought through his whole rage and then once the rage ended he healed himself once, before finally dying

. Granted, that encounter cost one PC his life, but that player loses PC's more freguently than we played, no matter what I did.

Nice!

-I like how everyone always asumed that every NPC is at all times ready for a lethal showdown combat as every spellcaster only memorises combat spells (most for deadly attacks). If I had that kind of power I'd use most of it to protect my precious life, that of those close to me. Maybe the evil wizard casts mage armor trice per day on his 7 year old daughter? And my second priority would be convenience. Transportation spells, comfort spells, read mind won't work on captain planet, but on my minions and the simple people definitely.

Totally agreed. Unless specifically involved in an ambush or expecting an attack with enough time for spell preparation, all of my spellcasters have a number of their spell slots used up for convenience spells. In fact, even the guys involved in an ambush or attack have at least a couple of non-combat spells prepped. Fireballs are sometimes handy, but Unseen Servant is a joy for ever

The same is true for magic items. Would really everyone have a unholy flaming dancing greatsword first on his christmas wishlist?

Likewise, while the rare warlord, adventurer and criminal might run around armored and heavily armed at all times, most other will propably wear only up to light armor and an elegant shortsword, rapier or concealed dagger at most times.

Agreed. If my PCs run into someone who's seriously loaded for bear, there's always an in-character and story reason for it. They do, however, have an unenviably good record of attacking people who have a reason to be in such a state.

But this is my usual approach to BBEG's, significant monsters and henchmen.

As you can see, my most important technique is nonsynergetic classing and mostly average attributes. This usually results in encounters that have a mightily lowered chance for the feared one-shot first round kill compered to encounters of een equal to or lower than the PC's CR.

As I mentioned above, though I almost certainly don't do so as much as you, it looks like I do use a lot of the things you do.

Damn!

Oh, what the hell ...

*throws flaming poo*

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Looks like your strategy for a challenging fight is as much power for as little HD as possible.

.....

Maybe your idea of encounter design is so hard to understand for me because I've taken the exactly opposite approach. I've found the best way to challenge my players is to create higher HD/CR opponents that are build for durability and style far more than raw power.

......

I've gone thrugh a lot of TPK's, total defeats of the PC's and more dead PC's than you can hit with a fireball till I've learned it. Luckily my group didn't mind character creation.

Using low CR opponents in numbers instead of high CR opponents are just different ways of acheiving the same end. They are two entirely different sorts of balancing act. As long as you grant XP in some reasonable manner, and dont do things that destroy any sense of believability. Anyway, its not "As much Power", its "As much challenge". Giving a potion of Heroism to a goblin makes the goblin more challenging, but its not exactly plausbile.

With a solo opponent, one roll can turn a climactic fight and challenging fight into a catastrophe for the villian, or the players. There is simply not much room for error. I am also not a fan of "Fail 1 save and die" combat. And because your players do dogpile those opponents, its hard to guage how tough an opponent ought to be. You could have 1 fight against a giant go easy for the players due to some good rolls, and a later fight against a similar giant turn into a slaughter because the Giant won initiative and took out someone with a crit.

With numbers of low CR opponents, there is quite simply much more room for error. If the fight is too easy, you can have re-enforcements show up. If it goes too difficult, the PC's can catch a break from the craptacular Attack bonus your using. Or you can have a few of the orc's get sloppy and eat an AoO and bite it. It also makes the fights more tactical (such as players having to pay attention to positioning of opponents who can score AoO).

I like using numbers of opponents because it does give me a much greater margin of error, and I do not have to hold back as often as I do when using the heavy hitters. It does have the drawbacks (such as keeping track of initiative and actions for 10 opponents).

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Celebrim]

I've already mentioned 'Tucker's Kobolds' once as an example of how not to challenge the PC's. The example annoys me enough that I feel the need to expound on it. This semi-rant should in no way be considered a direct attack on Moore (whom I respect) or Tucker. First of all, Moore may not be recalling the events correctly, the condenced essay may not reflect the actual events, and I'd just as soon not be held accountable for everything I did 15 years ago either.

First of all, despite protests to the contrary, Tucker's kobolds are not regular kobolds. Regular monster manual kobolds do not have flaming oil, metal armor, metal shields, flaming bolts, or even light crossbows. Still, I always regarded the monster manual entries as intended to inspire creativity, and not straight jacket it. So, lets say that Tucker's kobolds are as exceptional in thier wealth as they are in thier cunning and leave it at that.

The major problems that remain are that a) the kobolds appear to be cheating, in that I doubt Tucker would make the same rulings on PC's attempting the same tactics as he appears to have regards the kobolds and b) the kobolds don't make very good use of thier resources once you actually start ruling fairly.

First of all, assuming the that the PC's have as much as a 1 AC, its hard to imagine how any number of attacks from ordinary kobold snipers matter all that much regardless of tactics. A 12th level wizard with no CON bonus, would still expect to endure like 150 kobold attacks before being reduced to zero hitpoints - and that's without any sort of spell defences or healing. A party of just 4 would need to absorb more than 600 ordinary attacks, never mind that fighters would soak up more than twice as many attacks. Even at 20 attacks per round, that's thirty rounds of combat, and in 30 rounds of combat with mass kobolds a high level party is going to splatter more kobolds than I can count.

So clearly, if they are being more than annoyed these attacks, some 'special' rules are in play designed to favor the kobolds and these rules only work in one direction. The PC's never get to apply them. Can the PC's split move and fire too?

But what about the fire? Fire is generally speaking a horrible means of attacking any high level party if you are the least bit fair about it. The problem with molotof cocktails is that if you are struck while carrying one, there is a good chance you'll drop it, and if dropping it, that it breaks. And if it is actually effective, then you are in trouble. One wonders how often Tucker rolled to see if a molotoff throwing kobold who was killed, struck by a fear spell or sleep or anything else dropped his deadly load and roasted his nearby companions as well. I'd guess zero times. I'd also guess that never once did he Tucker roll to see if the hurled bottle didn't break when it bounced off the wizard or the donkey. Lesson here: bottles only break in this physics engine when its convienent for the kobolds, and never when it favors the PC's. Yet, I bet if the PC's loaded up with flaming oil, the same physics would quickly stop applying.

How about the push broom inferno's? Well, if the PC's thought of such tactics, I bet Tucker would have realized that the problems with a pushable fire are several. If it is large and burns brightly, then it either must consume its fuel quickly or else it must be heavy and not something easily moved around by shoving it with a 10' oversized shovel. If it is pine straw or similar hot burning light weight debris, it will only flame up for a single round after which it is just a nuisance easily jumped over or otherwise avoided. If it is coals and ashes, simply turning them over will help put them out. If it is wood logs, they very heavy and unwieldy. I have a hard time believing Tucker is applying his practical experience of burning leaf piles or brush, though if I suspect he had such experience he would apply it against a PC fire sweeper. Besides which, all this implies formations, which as we will see means easily slain kobolds.

Beyond that, there is the problem that even in 1st edition, you could get quite good protection from fire. Where is the resist fire spells? It seems a few simple 2nd level spells would have put an end to much of the kobold's threat.

If these kobolds are so fearsome, why don't the PC's make a concerted effort to wipe them out - especially after they've proved a problem and 'stolen your treasure'? Moore makes a big deal about how helpless the M-U is. Really? A 1st edition sleep spell puts on average 10 of them out of commision, besides the extras roasted in thier own flaming oil. A 1st edition 2nd level web spell is even better, filling any 8 10' x 10' cubes and one way or the other killing any kobolds trapped therein (if set on fire, all kobolds take 2d4 damage, plenty to kill any ordinary kobolds). Stinking cloud is almost as effective. Heck, even magic missile (6 missiles for a 1st edition 12th level M-U) will prove quite effective at taking out snipers as is perfect for dealing with anyone behind murder holes. Where is the wand of magic missiles? Forget fireball, where is the cloudkill, cone of cold, wall of fire, fear or ice storm? Aren't those the spells you prepare in preference to fireball if you have the chance and are going underground? And what about the 6th level spells? First editions 'Death Spell' kills on average 44 kobolds in one application. So forget the ganging up on the PC's, and if not ganging up on them they should easily be picked off by the other party members. I mean, assuming only a 10th level fighter with ordinary bonuses (say a +3 to hit), even against a 0 AC from a platemail wielding shielded kobold, he's not missing the oppurtunity to kill something all that often even in the pre-weapon specialization era.

If you are worried about corridors be set on fire, set them on fire yourself, then go in a few turns later as check for scorched corpses. For the most part, this stuff just doesn't sound mean to me.

Now, what could a kobold tribe do to protect themselves against a high level party? Certainly not fire arrows, split fire and move, snipe from murder holes or anything like that. That _might_ work in 1st edition for bugbears or even gnolls (with a THAC0 5 lower than kobolds), but it doesn't work for kobolds at all. Arrow slits are practically a waste for kobolds. Murder holes are great, but shooting arrows through them is pointless for kobolds. For kobolds or similar weenies, I know of only one thing that actually works well - drop dangerous things from high places. The meanest and most sensible thing to drop is not flaming oil, but kettles of boiling oil or water. Yes, you lose something in continous damage, but boiling water has the advantage of being cheaply replenished. You won't run out of the ingredients. You get versimilitude as a DM, and the kobolds get a weapon that is unlikely to roast their comrades when they fail thier saving throws. Better yet, they don't have to expose themselves the way flaming oil throwers did. But if you are going to use grenade like weapons, by all means take advantage of ballistics and don't walk out in front of the PC's. Instead, use the lob and pray method. Stand behind something. 90% cover is great, but total cover is better. Push things off ledges. If you only have a 5% chance of hitting, you are doing no worse than firing a crossbow. You don't need clay pots filled with scorpions; rocks will do just fine in the long run. Instead of setting the corridor on fire, put heavy stones in hammocks high above the corridor, and simply release the cradle and let its contents fall. This is far better and more sensible than collapsable tunnels, because its a resettable trap and doesn't wreck your koboldish home. You need to channel and trap the PC's? Why burning fires pushed by brooms? You expose yourself to enemy fire. How about mantlets, so constructed as to dig into the floor when pushed on. How about old fashioned porticli? Unlike barred doors, these are not subject to simple knock spells. Ramps are better than stairs. You can roll things down ramps. Like wheeled mantlets with wooden spikes on the front. Pouring something slippery down a steep ramp the PC's are on is also fun. Another nice feature to construct is a dam. Nothing closes a corridor like opening a sluice and sending a rushing wall of water down it - especially if you are sweeping the characters into a pit. Again, resetable trap and it doesn't take fancy machinery and metal work.

And the great thing, is that none of this requires you to use kobolds more fiercely equipped than the default ones in the Monster Manual, because how they are equipped is irrelevant and nothing I mentioned is valuable or difficult to acquire or even manufacture. Moreover, you aren't cheating. You aren't giving the kobolds any bonuses to hit or damage you wouldn't give the PC's in the same situation. You aren't inventing equipment not accessible to the PC's.

I don't think that Moore's party leader was shaking his head at the tactical situation, which doesn't sound that overwhelming. I think that he was shaking his head at the basic impossibility of succeeding when the DM is basically choosing to win by fiat.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've already mentioned 'Tucker's Kobolds' once as an example of how not to challenge the PC's. The example annoys me enough that I feel the need to expound on it. This semi-rant should in no way be considered a direct attack on Moore (whom I respect) or Tucker. First of all, Moore may not be recalling the events correctly, the condenced essay may not reflect the actual events, and I'd just as soon not be held accountable for everything I did 15 years ago either.

...

LOTS of snippage

...

I don't think that Moore's party leader was shaking his head at the tactical situation, which doesn't sound that overwhelming. I think that he was shaking his head at the basic impossibility of succeeding when the DM is basically choosing to win by fiat.

That's quite a rant, but I have to disagree. I ran some kobolds back in 1E in a similar vein, and totally by the rules, and they posed a dire challenge to high level PCs. Mine mainly used wire nets with hooks to make them tough to get away from and flaming oil, but the result was the same as Tucker's. Superior tactics, coordination, and preparation go a long way. There were any number of times that if there had been 20 more kobolds I would have had a TPK against level 10+ characters.