Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Flamestrike" data-source="post: 6974349" data-attributes="member: 6788736">Reasonably often.Of course sometimes I go the other way and set up an encoutner to showcase those same choices (ground based monsters with weak ranged attacks vs flying PCs).You've gotta mix it up and maken all builds and choices viable.You dont, and this is why your PCs focus on the single (and repetative) tactics.Remember its the DMs job to challenge the PCs. Its no different doing this (intentionally designing encounters that circumvent the parties strengths) when designing your encounters than it is 'ramping up the CR'. Youre just making the encounters more difficult (in this case via applying art in design over math).And your way is to 'add more monsters/ ramp up the CR'. Whats the meaningful difference?The advantage of simply adjusting encounter set up (instead of just making the monsters more powerful/ more of them) is you avoid rocket tag, and ensure there is no 'one true way' to adventure. All builds and tactics are viable, and all builds and tactics have their chance to shine. No player ever gets comfortable. No; I expect some encounters to be crushed. Its not individual encounters that are the challenge (any more than individual rounds are the challenge); its navigating the entire adventuring day and completing the quest thats the challenge. Encounters and combat rounds are part of the overall challenge of completing the quest.By mixing up your encounters that adventuring day (a solo creature, a mook heavy encounter, one with intresting terrain, one that hits the PCs where they least expect it, one where they get the drop on the monsters, one with casters, one with high HP, one with high AC, a social encounter etc etc) they all get a chance to shine over the adventuring day.The reason your PCs use the same tactics over and over again, is due to the way you build, place and structure your encounters. These arent maths considerations, they're DM choices.Doing the same thing over and over again is boring. Mix up your encounters via design (and not simply maths). Make your players think (including thinking outside the square from time to time).The early encounters were [medium-hard]. This means the expectation was the PCs should be able to overvome them (defeat them) inside of a few rounds with an approximate 10 percent resource drain.Remember individual encounter difficulty wasnt the challenge. The challenge was navigating the entire adventuring day with enough gas in the tank to complete the quest.This factor in turn makes the encounters more difficult, and makes the use of a spell/ action surge/ rage etc more meaningful. The players have no idea how many encounters they need to over come before their next long rest. Accordingly they hold back on using them. This in turn makes the encounters more difficult (they cant afford to nova).If I was DMing that adventure, I would have been able to use a few other DMing tricks. Not giving my players more than 2-3 seconds to declare actions (or they take the dodge action and their turn ends). Placing minis on the board in an encounter map within 30-60'. Managing the encounter by fudging a few dice rolls up or down. And tons of other things. Plus the players wouldnt have had the advance knowledge that it was going to be 6-8 encounters, with the encounter stats and set up explained to them beforehand. They would have been going in blind. I never said that and thats totally not true.I have no problem with min-maxing. None at all. I encourage it at my table.I have a problem with (as you put it) 'CN murder-hobos that have no reason to bite on any DM hook, have no connection to anything in the game world so the DM cant bait them into an adventure'This isnt the stormwind fallacy, but at my table I expect good rules knowledge, mechanically good characters (min max away) AND well fleshed out characters with alignments, background, flaws and personality.If you want to play a 2 dimensional murderhobo, do it at another table.</blockquote>

Verification