D&D 5E Q&A -- Dec 20: Puzzle monsters and spell points.

[the Jester]

Covered.

Done, Jester.

Edit: Scooped. Ha! Double your pleasure and double your fun, everything's better with double mint gum.

Thanks to you both!

 

[Minigiant]

Should they?

The Lich in the playtest has two fifth-level spell slots. It can cast Cloudkill.
In quite a number of tactical settings, that is a horrifically powerful spell - 6d8 poison damage every round, for up to ten rounds (as long as the Lich concentrates - and since it doesn't affect undead, the Lich can stay in the cloud happily). The lich is a pretty good tough solo encounter for a party of four 5th-level characters (I know, I ran it as that a couple of weeks ago).

But what if I didn't cast it? I mean, in the fight I'm thinking about, a 5th-level lightning bolt was better for the first round. In some cases, a fifth level magic missile or fireball might be better - they can hit a vastly wider-spread group than a 20' radius area.

But does this mean that the Bestiary should contain two XP values for the lich - one casting Cloudkill, one not?

Of course not.

The XP value needs to show the balanced *potential* value of defeating that creature. If it doesn't use all of its abilities, it's still been defeated, the party just had a (possibly) easier time of it. Maybe the tactical situation was such that it couldn't use those abilities. In that case, hopefully the party had some part in causing the situation that "weakened" the creature. If so, they earned the XP that way. If they had nothing to do with the situation, then the GM has constructed it.

One of my main issues is how random some of the summlons are. Especially demons. Percentage chance for success and a random amount summoned in some cases. Really makes things wacky. I had as session and rolled really bad for one demon and really good in the second fight. I would like the ability to pull the randomness out and manage the summons directly. Not surprise 18 dretches.

 

[ccooke]

One of my main issues is how random some of the summlons are. Especially demons. Percentage chance for success and a random amount summoned in some cases. Really makes things wacky. I had as session and rolled really bad for one demon and really good in the second fight. I would like the ability to pull the randomness out an mange the summons directly. Not surprise 18 dretches.

Well, surely you can just take the average?

But yes, I can see your point there. Maybe the real issue is that the bestiary entry doesn't work well - let's hope they cover it well in the internal playtest. You'd certainly hope that they've playtested every monster in the bestiary multiple times. They're on the boring, repetitive part of the playtesting now after all.

 

[I'm A Banana]

While it makes sense certain enemies are immune to precision damage, it makes just as much sense that some enemies are specifically vulnerable to it. Zombie headshots, beholder eyes, vampire hearts, a certain dragon's missing scale, and the boss's glowing secret weakness could all provide chances for those characters to shine.

I'm fond of this idea. I wouldn't want to make rogues the only ones capable of doing it, but I really like the idea of rogues being able to exploit that vulnerability. That lines up snugly with Mearls's idea of the "feel' of playing an opportunistic fighter who looks for exploits.

Maybe the rogue won't slay the beholder, but she should TOTALLY be the one jamming rocks in the eye sockets and severing tendrils.

In 4e terms, this makes the rogue something of a controller, a fighter who disables enemies...hmm....

 

[Sage Genesis]

While it makes sense certain enemies are immune to precision damage, it makes just as much sense that some enemies are specifically vulnerable to it. Zombie headshots, beholder eyes, vampire hearts, a certain dragon's missing scale, and the boss's glowing secret weakness could all provide chances for those characters to shine.

One could do worse than borrow some of Iron Heroes' stunt mechanics and incorporate it into class abilities and items. Say, every monster ability has one or more keywords. And then one could temporarily suppress certain keywords by making successful checks.

For instance, a ghost is incorporeal due to its nature as a type of undead, but a Cleric's burst of positive energy might temporarily force it fully out of the ethereal and render it normally vulnerable to physical effects. (Or maybe the Cleric can't do that but a Plane Shift spell could. The Cleric might then, instead, be able to interfere with its energy drain.) And a medusa's gaze is magical but also relies on anatomy, so the Rogue can slash across her eyes and make blood flow into them, forcing her gaze attack to shut down for a round or two. This would be tricky to balance right and one might need to design the entire game to incorporate this kind of mechanic from the ground up, but it could be done.

 

[Derren]

3.5 sneak attack immunities were pretty over the top and I don't think many people would argue with scaling it back a bit.

I would.
Having undead and golems not caring where you hit them as they were just lumps of meat/stone animated by magic or unholy energy was a nice touch and made sense. And as I do not track the damage I do in a dungeon like it was a MMO I had no problem with SA not working with my rogue. But I also did not build him as a one trick pony for maximum DPS which is apparently the default way to build characters now.
And in the event that I build a character as one trick pony, rogue or elemental mage, etc. then this was part of his role and overcoming situations where his trick didn't work part of the game which was a nice way to roleplay even in combat.

 

[Kinak]

I like my 'boss fights' to have some element of puzzle. Maybe the villain has a power that makes him a bit tougher than usual until you figure out how to thwart it. Maybe there's something dangerous happening in the background that you need to figure out how to stop while you're trying to avoid the big scary monster.

I'm also a big fan of puzzle fights, especially for bosses. The occasional "standard" fight is nice, but bosses really need something to set them apart.

If you could let rogues use sneak attack to tear out a beholder's eye, that would F***ing Rock! I'm going to see if I can implement that in some of the last ZEITGEIST adventures we release for 4th edition.

Awesome!

I'm fond of this idea. I wouldn't want to make rogues the only ones capable of doing it, but I really like the idea of rogues being able to exploit that vulnerability. That lines up snugly with Mearls's idea of the "feel' of playing an opportunistic fighter who looks for exploits.

Yeah, no reason for rogues to have all the fun

For Pathfinder, I'm planning on including sneak attacks, critical hits, and vital strikes as "precision damage" for this purpose.

One could do worse than borrow some of Iron Heroes' stunt mechanics and incorporate it into class abilities and items. Say, every monster ability has one or more keywords. And then one could temporarily suppress certain keywords by making successful checks.

You could definitely design some deep interactions between keywords like that, but I'd probably just assign keywords to the damage (most of which is already done) and key the monster vulnerabilities to that.

It would also work pretty well with stunting. I know the Iron Heroes Bestiary had a couple of monsters that had built in stunts. Shame they didn't do more with it.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Falling Icicle]

3.5 sneak attack immunities were pretty over the top and I don't think many people would argue with scaling it back a bit.

That said, I think the real problem with sneak attack is that it never really gets its time in the spotlight. While your pyromaniac invoker might be hosed against a red dragon or fire elemental, you get to feel like a god against trolls and ice creatures.

While it makes sense certain enemies are immune to precision damage, it makes just as much sense that some enemies are specifically vulnerable to it. Zombie headshots, beholder eyes, vampire hearts, a certain dragon's missing scale, and the boss's glowing secret weakness could all provide chances for those characters to shine.

Giving rogues some chances to be really glad they have sneak attack will do far more to help them enjoy the class than removing the times they feel bad about having sneak attack.

Cheers!
Kinak

That's not a bad idea, but the thing with sneak attack is that it isn't like a mage with fire spells. A mage always has the option to learn and prepare non-fire spells instead. A rogue, on the other hand, is just pretty much useless when fighting creatures immune to sneak attack. He can't replace that ability with something else. Since sneak attack has been made such a vital part of the rogue's entire combat strategy, he's rendered ineffective with no alternatives. It's a lot like making a monster immune to a fighter's extra attacks. He'd lose a ton of his damage potential and wouldn't have any way of making up for it.

 

[Brock Landers]

I dig it: a nice plug-and-play variant system for those who want.

It sounds like the Sorcerer will be able to tweak spells (I am speculating no preparation).

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I would.
Having undead and golems not caring where you hit them as they were just lumps of meat/stone animated by magic or unholy energy was a nice touch and made sense.

No it doesn't, zombies in most things go down when you hit them in a head. And constructs are like machines such as automobiles, there's certainly places that you can hit a car in that will stop it from functioning more than hitting them in other places, like hitting the engine vs hitting the windows.