D&D General One of my favorite challenges is party vs party!

[Slit518]

One of my favorite ways to challenge my players is an NPC party vs their party.

This tends to work no matter what level the party is, because as the DM, you decide when and how to implement the NPC party, and attempt to match the players' power.

You make the characters around the same level, you have the party size be around the same, stat distribution just like how you had your players do it, and equipment optimal for the level, with optional magic items or two.

This tends to pose a good challenge for the players, and they feel really rewarded when they win.

In this, expect at least a player or two to go down, not necessarily die, but go down.

The first time I did it I had a Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian, Sorcerer, and Cleric face off against the players' Bard, Thief, Sorcerer, Cleric, Monk, Barbarian (the two Barbarians had a test or Strength).

The second time I did it I had an Assassin, Necromancer, Oathbreaker Paladin, and Death Cleric face off against the players' Bard, Warlock, Barbarian, Barbarian.

The first game was 2e, the second one was 5e. There are probably other instances of party vs party that I remember, but these ones stuck out the most. That, and I don't want to over use that plot point.

 

[payn]

Agreed, this is always a good tool in the GM kit. Often, I dont put the parties in direct conflict. Sometimes the competitive party takes on jobs the PCs refused. Other times, the parties are in competition for the same job. A race to discover lost treasures and rescue folks in distress. The PCs having rivals, as opposed ot straight enemies, is an often overlooked element of fun at the table.

 

[Stalker0]

4e had the philosophy that "it takes a party to beat a party"..... and I completely agree.

There is a reason parties are so strong, a good number of actions combined with coverage on multiple fronts provides flexibility and power all in one package. Having the enemy do it just makes sense.

 

[Slit518]

4e had the philosophy that "it takes a party to beat a party"..... and I completely agree.

Funny part is, I never played 4e except once at a convention for Adventurer's League.

It appears they too saw the merit in it.

 

[Lanefan]

I enjoy those adventuring-party-v-adventuring-party encounters but man are they a beeyotch to run!

I think all three of the longest (in real time) combats I've ever run were of this type; the longest taking slightly less than three full sessions to play out.

 

[aco175]

I do this once in a while, but the best is to have the exact same PCs go after the party. I'll just have the players play a shadow clone of their PC to attack the others. Maybe some of their magic will not clone over, but the players tend to like attacking the other PCs with their clone bad guy. Although, the tactics of the players playing the bad guys is not quite the same as when they play the good guy tactics. This is offset a bit by the fact they burn all their powers in the one fight without holding anything.

 

[Ancalagon]

If you like this style, I strongly urge you look up "Deep Carbon Observatory", which is an astounding adventure* featuring a cunning group of rivals.

(adventure in the old style of the world, not these modern "adventures" that are really campaigns)

 

[iserith]

In every campaign, I have a rival party of adventurers called the Iconics who are the same characters from D&D 3e - Tordek, Mialee, Jozan, Lidda, and so on. They're always the worst sorts of jerks that the players love to defeat.

In my current campaign, the Iconics have co-opted the local adventuring guild, The Guild of Transient Heroes, and are using it to rob everything that isn't bolted down. After some friction with them, the PCs have finally decided to take them out, but this poses a massive problem: Based on the way training works in this campaign, killing Tordek, Mialee, and Jozan means that the fighter, wizard, and cleric PCs can no longer level up since the Iconics are their trainers! (There are no rogue PCs so taking out Lidda's no big deal currently.) So essentially they'll have to retire their fighter, wizards, and clerics after they take down the Iconics and bring in their back up characters. But given they are moving forward with these plans, I gather they hate them enough where they see this is worth it!

 

[Lyxen]

I really like having an opposite adventuring party as rivals and potentially as adversaries as part of the story, sometimes with a fight at the end, sometimes with the PCs rescuing the other team, etc., but I don't like creating PC-style NPCs and pitting them against players. That smacks way too much of DM vs. Players as a style, which is a way of playing the game that I really don't like. Moreover, 5e, unless you play it with very well defined house rules and on a grid (the second it an option only for 5e and one that we never use, and the first one is not the way the system has been built), the fuzziness of the 5e rules and the need for constant adjudication from the DM does not make it what I would consider a fair challenge. But then, even when I created an opposite party for the players in 4e (which is much more suitable for this than 5e because of the precise rules), I did not use PC-build NPCs, the views at our table is that the DM is there to play with the players, not against them.

 

[payn]

I do this once in a while, but the best is to have the exact same PCs go after the party. I'll just have the players play a shadow clone of their PC to attack the others. Maybe some of their magic will not clone over, but the players tend to like attacking the other PCs with their clone bad guy. Although, the tactics of the players playing the bad guys is not quite the same as when they play the good guy tactics. This is offset a bit by the fact they burn all their powers in the one fight without holding anything.

Do the clone PCs have goatees?