How a DM can counter cheesy PC tactics w/o using cheesy DM tactics.

[Pielorinho]

Hmm...

It's not as good as improved invisibility!! It makes the rest of the group mostly useless ! For about as much magical investment. (2nd+3rd level vs 4th level)
Unless of course you cast it on every PC. Now that would be cheesy.

1) It makes everyone else nearby mostly useless. This includes your enemies as well as your allies. And if your allies carry a daylight spell with them, they can just keep a little distance from you and thereby ensure that they're not rendered useless.
2) Why not cast it on every PC? For a second-level spell and four third-level spells, you get something *more* powerful than four fourth-level spells: it lasts 60 times as long, and enemies' movement rates are halved, and they get -4 on strength and dexterity checks.

Generally, it's the DM's job to eliminate cheesiness. PLayers with intelligent pcs should constantly be looking for "cheesy" tactics: an intelligent PC is going to be looking for every way to tilt the odds in her favor.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

BTW, banning th' spell only removes the tactic from th' PCs -- it would still be very useable by the NPCs......why aren't all the bad guys with blindsight doing this? Oh, they are? Great.....so how do the players feel about that?

Actually, I used versions of this tactic twice on my PCs as a DM:

1) Once, a grimlock assassin cast darkness before going into battle. Since one of the PCs always keeps a daylight spell memorized, it didn't have much effect.
2) Once, a cleric/ranger trained a bunch of dogs in a specialized fighting style: before releasing them, he cast darkness on one and silence on another. They fought primarily by scent, and nearly killed a PC before another one had the brilliant idea of lobbing a stinkbomb into the middle of their group.

The players enjoyed both battles. The difference between blindsight creatures using this tactic and players using this tactic is monotony: the monsters will probably only be involved in one game session, whereas the players will be involved in a lot.

This tactic will have a tendency to make many battles look the same, and they will tend to make one PC the star of most battles. Neither of these is a good thing: battles should ideally all be different and weird, and different PCs should get a chance to shine in different battles.

That's why I as a DM don't want the PCs to have easy access to this tactic: if they do, it'll lesson the fun for the players.

Daniel

 

[IceBear]

Alrighty then, let's put it a diferrent way:
Surely a spell that duplicates some other creature's extrodinary ability is not out of line? (That is, it's not something that "cannot be duplicated by magic".)

Draconian usually implies harsh and unreasonable. I think banning the spell outright falls into that catagory. I stated that bumping the spell up a level or two would be preferable. ....I think you might even agree with this last bit.

And yes, of course you don't have to accept at face-value whatever is in a splatbook. Come on, we're not a bunch of 1st graders listening to a spelling lesson here.

BTW, banning th' spell only removes the tactic from th' PCs -- it would still be very useable by the NPCs......why aren't all the bad guys with blindsight doing this? Oh, they are? Great.....so how do the players feel about that?

Well, in my campaign everything outside the core books is banned unless discussed first. Generally we reach a concensus on whether or not to allow something in. I don't think that's very draconian of me. Do you allow everything from any splatbook automatically? I like working from a common base with the players myself.

Sure, NPCs could use it too. That's generally how I make sure my players understand the consequences of allowing something into the game - I explain a situation in which some NPCs/monsters are using it on them. If something is cheesy and they see how that cheese can be used against them, they'll tend to no longer want it. Again, hardly draconian of me.

IceBear

 

[Nail]

Sure, NPCs could use it too. That's generally how I make sure my players understand the consequences of allowing something into the game - I explain a situation in which some NPCs/monsters are using it on them. If something is cheesy and they see how that cheese can be used against them, they'll tend to no longer want it.

Amen!

So, you could get this effect by retooling the spell level and duration.......

 

[IceBear]

Amen!

So, you could get this effect by retooling the spell level and duration.......

I could, but since we get along fine without it already and no one in my group is begging for it, why should I?

Just because you can, and it exists, doesn't mean you should.

I'm not the one having issues with it, and every time I've seen it mentioned it has caused problems. Thus, it's easier to stay with the status quo - UNLESS a player wants it. Then I would entertain other ideas.

IceBear

 

[Nail]

I could, but since we get along fine without it already and no one in my group is begging for it, why should I?

Just because you can, and it exists, doesn't mean you should.

IceBear

Reporter: "Sir Edmund Hilary, why did you climb Mt. Everest?"

Sir Edmund: "Because it was there."

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Our party doesn't use this tactic but it is not something I would put above our DM. I personally don't think this is that bad as our party could could fairly easily figure out some way to deal with it. First off we are not stupid enough to allow the fight to be conducted this way, and nobody would willingly stay in the sphere of darkness.

Step 1 would be for the spellcasters to come up with a way to stop this. If no Dispell magic is availible a alternate spell could be cast to slow him down. We would likely cast any 1 of these: Entangle, Plant Growth, Web, Any of several Wall spells. This should slow him down enough and cut him off so he will not be an imediate threat. Are these cheesy, I don't think so, these are all around usefull spells not just counter spells and we have at least a couple memorized at all times. Using spells to break up a fight into manageable bits is just good tactics.

Step 2 once he is slowed Area effect spells would be launched at the center of the darkness. This will either kill him or soften him up for later.

Step 3 our fighters would avoid the darkness, or run though it on the edges, and go after the other members of the party especialy the spellcasters. They will continue to stay out of the darkness as best they can. If the darkness returns to follow we would continue to move the fight out of the darkness, since it is unlikely the spellcaster is giving everyone blindsight. Remember that Darkness effects his side just as much except for the Rogue.

Step 4 once the other members of the party have been dealt with only then will we focus on this problem. With the long durations this may be a muti-step problem. If we can not dispell the darkness, we may let the rogue live for the rest of the day and deal with him the next day when he will no longer have the blindsight spell. If we have another Rogue or Barbarian or a Blink, blur or displacement spell, or some summoned creature who can locate the rogue in the darkness, we may send someone in to fight.

The person I realy feel sorry for however are the spellcasters. The real problem is not the Rogue but the person buffing him. If I had to deal with such an enemy and wasn't prepared for it I would flee until the next day. Possibly that night or the next day I would strike again, this time putting everyones full focus on the spellcaster, if he is taken down this will no longer be a problem. This time we would use the steps 1-3 above and the spellcaster is going down this time, then we can decide how to proceed with step 4.

This does not seem all that big of a problem for the smart foe, or even the somewhat less smart ones. Only the dumbest of creature will stick around to fight in the dark if they can't see. If the foe doesn't have a counter right away why are they sticking around, Why won't they retreat and come back later when they can counter.

Are these Ideas cheese, I don't think so, just smart tactics. And since when are smart tactics cheesy. as a player I would be personally upset if every encounter was stupid enough to fall for this, leaving me bored repeating the same fight over and over. Once or twice I could see this working, but if my DM didn't counter and force us to keep changing tactics I would not want to continue.

 

[Pielorinho]

Reporter: Sir Edmund Hilary, why did you nerf blindsight?
Sir Edmund Hilary: Huh? What the devil are you talking about?

Daniel

 

[IceBear]

Again, my campaign is running fine. Why screw with it? "Because it's there" nonwithstanding?

Do what you want in yours. Introduce what you want it yours. I have enough issues keeping the balance as it is without adding something that many people have had balance issues with.

IceBear

 

[Pielorinho]

Our party doesn't use this tactic but it is not something I would put above our DM. I personally don't think this is that bad as our party could could fairly easily figure out some way to deal with it. First off we are not stupid enough to allow the fight to be conducted this way, and nobody would willingly stay in the sphere of darkness.

Just a quick note: while your tactics are all very good, they're not always an option. When I used this on my PCs, I used wolf stats for the trained dogs, giving them that funky trippy ability. It's very difficult to get away when you're in the dark and surrounded by wolves: they'll use their AoO to trip you again. And you don't always have the option of running away from a battle: my favorite battles always have serious consequences beyond death, such that running away might allow the villains to finish their fiendish plots or whatever.

And villains who face this tactic from PCs will often not have access to the countermeasures you mention: magic especially is possessed only by a few villains, and a rogue with the fly spell can move faster than almost any nonmagical villain, making fleeing not an option. Especially if all PCs are under the effects of blindsight, this combination is deadly indeed.

Daniel