I do not disagree at all. Which is why that's not what I've been posting about.One of the possible options is for the party to figure out that they are in over their heads.
I do not disagree at all. Which is why that's not what I've been posting about.One of the possible options is for the party to figure out that they are in over their heads.
Because "the players not being too stubborn to run away" is a viable option.
I agree, I think there are fun things that can be done with this scenario that deepen the themes rather than pulling away from them. I'm a big fan of consequences that offer more opportunities for PC action -- don't save them from loss, just change the loss into a situation that they now have to fix.I know how moments like these can make us second guess ourselves as DMs. Did I provide enough foreshadowing? Was I clear about the opportunities for power/allies in this dungeon? Did I lean too hard into their weaknesses? I've been there and I'll be there again. The silver lining is that, if I keep my wits about me, moments like this are a great opportunity to explore the story deeper.
For instance, just taking the standard MM lich's Lair Actions, there could be a lot of story implications behind "tether" and "dead spirits."
That "tether" implies some kind of a psychic or soul-based connection between the Lich and the Wizard PC. Even though the MM describes that mechanistically as a one-way street benefiting the Lich, that need not be the case. What does that connection look and feel like? For instance, can the Wizard PC catch glimpses of the Lich's past to ascertain its weaknesses (either mechanical vulnerabilities/weaknesses or roleplaying flaws)? Might there be a way for the Wizard PC to strip away certain condition immunities (e.g. charmed? for the alu-fiend to get charm through) from the Lich by sheer force of will exploiting that connection? As a last ditch scenario, could the Wizard deliberately nuke himself and force the Lich to take half damage in a sacrifice play to win the day or at least cause the Lich enough harm that it retreats?
Or with the "dead spirits", that implies there are a lot of souls that have been bound to the Lich over the years. Maybe in the heat of combat, the Lich's binding on these souls weakens? Could a cleric or paladin use Channel Divinity – perhaps with a bit of roleplay interaction with one of these spirits – to turn the souls against the Lich?
I'd lean harder into your story, and also see what story implications there might be to the scene / stats that maybe heretofore have been hidden or unexplored.
On the plus side, for an experienced group of 5e players, it's probably refreshing for them to feel like something is pushing them beyond their limits. I know you said that a TPK is a foregone conclusion, but I've learned never to underestimate my players, especially when all the chips are down. They just might have a plan (even a reckless one).
I agree, I think there are fun things that can be done with this scenario that deepen the themes rather than pulling away from them. I'm a big fan of consequences that offer more opportunities for PC action -- don't save them from loss, just change the loss into a situation that they now have to fix.
My first thought from this "tether" concept was that the Lich might be somehow feeding off of one of the PCs, and infecting them with an undead state in exchange. If the fighter is approaching death, why not instead push them into a state of semi-undeath? Make them a thrall of the Lich and turn the party loose, leaving them to figure out how to reverse what's been done to the fighter before they become a complete zombie.
Or apply it to the whole party. The Lich has been spamming Toll the Dead, causing necromantic damage? Gradually everyone is becoming tainted by undeath. The Lich leaves them alive, but cursed. Even when they try to sleep, they're haunted by the clanging of bells. Now hunting down the Lich again is a matter of their own survival, but if they don't find the resources/allies they need first, they won't have a hope of reversing what's been done to them.
"Knocking a Creature Out
Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack, the attacker can knock the creature out. The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt. The creature falls unconscious and is stable. "
Fights are exactly as difficult to flee from as the DM wants them to be.Unless it isn't (a viable option).
Fights, in ALL versions of D&D with 5e being no exception, are difficult to flee from.
It's quite helpful. It's just not something you want to do. Which is fair. But it's still a viable option.And as to the OP, he's stated he WANTS some ideas on how to avoid A TPK because HE made some mistakes. Saying, nah, just kill them - isn't all that helpful!
I would say it can be something to strive for, but that in the doing the DM and players both need to be aware that an equation in a book is not going to take into account all the variables that may lead to things being harder (or easier!) than expected. Smart play in that context is to have a Plan B at all times. If everyone is on the same page with regard to that fact, then it can work just fine as a principle of challenge design.Fights are exactly as difficult to flee from as the DM wants them to be.
It's quite helpful. It's just not something you want to do. Which is fair. But it's still a viable option.
The OP's request is predicated on a false premise. That encounter balance is something to strive for. It's not.
OK, so when in a position like this, I would do a couple of things:Setup: PCs are 8th level, a caster-heavy group drained of resources, in a battle with an "atrophied" lich (has some lair and legendary lich abilities, capped as 11th level caster, reduced DCs, no phylactery so it won't stick around if there's a chance it could be destroyed) that had a Shield Guardian hidden nearby siphoning, then regenerating, damage. There's a complicated backstory, but let's stick to the fight part.
IF the battle keeps going as-is, it's a TPK. We paused in battle between session, so I have till next weekend to regroup.
It Got Out of Control When... The atrophied lich used its Lair tether ability (CON save or take half the damage the lich takes) and the Shield Guardian ability, combined with legendary actions to repeatedly cast Toll the Dead. I felt it's a fair tactic a genius-level bad guy would use, especially since he's been scrying the PCs for weeks now.
What the DM did to try and help... Threw in an alu-fiend that wanted out of a deal with the Boss and banked on the PCs being strong. She helped them find and take out the Shield Guardian. She has little to directly affect the Boss.
But, it's still too much... The Guardian is now down, but the atrophied lich is still renewing spells each round, doing great on HP, and tethering to the PC wizard. He's been scrying them for weeks now, so I've tailored his strategies to defeat their abilities. The PC fighter is on fumes. The PCs have exhausted their powers trying to keep her afloat.
So, damn, what do you do? I believe now the PCs should have been 9 or 10th level before this battle, my bad on that part. Too late now to correct. It's game on and if I play the Boss intelligently, it knows it's winning and simply has to spam Toll the Dead until everyone is dead. Looking for ways to throw in some (believable) chances for the PCs rather than mercilessly mow them down. Also, on a tangent, may approach the group again about limiting the # of attack cantrips one can cast between short rests. The fighter PC is probably not happy with cantrip spam at the moment...
Sure...but picking up any die and realizing that randomness is a part of the game...that dice are involved in play...should give you all the information you need for the "smart play" or to be "on the same page" in regards to always having a plan B. Players thinking they can safely rush in, brute force every problem, and always be assured an easy victory is as much a failing on the part of the designers as the DM and players.I would say it can be something to strive for, but that in the doing the DM and players both need to be aware that an equation in a book is not going to take into account all the variables that may lead to things being harder (or easier!) than expected. Smart play in that context is to have a Plan B at all times. If everyone is on the same page with regard to that fact, then it can work just fine as a principle of challenge design.
While true, this is a meaningless statement.Fights are exactly as difficult to flee from as the DM wants them to be.
The point is a TPK or even partial TPK is, often, the least fun option. The break in the action presents an opportunity to inject some other fun things that can occur.It's quite helpful. It's just not something you want to do. Which is fair. But it's still a viable option.
The OP's request is predicated on a false premise. That encounter balance is something to strive for. It's not. It makes the world feel like a video game. Some things will be a breezy walk in the park, others a desperate and overwhelming fight to the death. Fights that you expect to go one way will inevitably go the other. So be it.
If the DM inserts a deadly encounter (an actual deadly encounter not a DMG rated deadly encounter, which is just a resource thing) without taking into account that the PCs may have to run, or worse doesn't build in/allow ways for them to run, then the DM is being a jerk - full stop.The players can decide to run. If they don't, that's on them. The DM can decide to let them run, that's on them. The DM can also do any one of the dozens of suggestions already presented...up to and including the dreaded TPK.
I'm not sure that's obvious to everyone, so it's worth talking about as a group in my view.Sure...but picking up any die and realizing that randomness is a part of the game...that dice are involved in play...should give you all the information you need for the "smart play" or to be "on the same page" in regards to always having a plan B. Players thinking they can safely rush in, brute force every problem, and always be assured an easy victory is as much a failing on the part of the designers as the DM and players.
Not at all. It's a direct counter to your silly claim that all D&D fights in every edition are difficult to escape. You're wrong about that. The fights in D&D, no matter the edition, are exactly as difficult to escape as the DM decides.While true, this is a meaningless statement.
As long as they have hit points and they're not locked in, the PCs can always run. If that needs explaining, there are deeper issues that need to be talked about first.If the PCs don't know that fleeing is an option, then, likely, they won't do it. The DM not only has to make fleeing viable, he has to ensure the PCs know it's viable.
We must not be using that abbreviation to mean the same thing. I'm using it to mean Total Party Kill. There's no such thing as a partial total something.The point is a TPK or even partial TPK
Only if it's the end of the game. As mentioned by me and a few other people, you can even make death or losing into a part of the game. Depending on how mythical or epic you want to go, it can be the most memorable part.is, often, the least fun option. The break in the action presents an opportunity to inject some other fun things that can occur.
There's your problem. Don't do that. It's not for the DM to plan. It's for the DM to react. The PCs want to go hunting a dragon at 1st level? Fine. Let's go. The PCs want to play politics in the big city? Fine. Let's go. the PCs want to raid goblin villages at 20th level? Fine. Let's go.Encounter balance is more about the DM gauging how hard an encounter is likely to be so he can plan his adventures accordingly.
No, the DM doesn't. The PCs get to decide what they tackle and how difficult the challenges are. If they want to hunt dragons at 1st level...cool. Start rolling up new characters now because you'll need them. Want to walk all over CR1/8 monsters at 20th...cool...if utterly boring.D&D is a level based game, the DM HAS to know what will challenge the group, what won't and what will likely be too difficult.
Again, unless the door is locked, the path barred, and the PCs dead, they can always run.If nothing else, the DM needs to know WHEN to build in opportunities for the PCs to get the heck out of dodge.
The DM coddling the PCs and protecting them from their terrible choices is also a jerk move. The DM not playing the world with some sense of verisimilitude is also a jerk move. A hyper-intelligent lich scrying on an adventuring party and building the perfect counter to every one of their abilities is exactly what a hyper-intelligent lich would do. Anything less than that is coddling the players and being a jerk. Some fights are inescapable. Some fights are deadly. Some deadly fights are inescapable. A hyper-intelligent lich who can scry on the adventuring party and build the perfect counter to every one of their abilities is not likely to make it easy for the party to escape. Anything less breaks suspension of disbelief. If that seems unfair, tell it to the lich. I'm sure it'll be sympathetic. If the PCs are dumb enough to walk into a trap, then they're dumb enough to walk into a trap. It's only a jerk move if you don't telegraph it. Like old-school save or die stuff that's undetectable? Forget that noise.If the DM inserts a deadly encounter (an actual deadly encounter not a DMG rated deadly encounter, which is just a resource thing) without taking into account that the PCs may have to run, or worse doesn't build in/allow ways for them to run, then the DM is being a jerk - full stop.
It's not obvious that rolling a die produces a random number? Okay.I'm not sure that's obvious to everyone, so it's worth talking about as a group in my view.
Didn't some guy up thread suggest murdering all the stragglers?Fights are exactly as difficult to flee from as the DM wants them to be.
This is simply not true. PCs OFTEN don't moves as fast/ or at least not faster than opponents. The DM needs to consider fleeing as an option or it may not actually be a viable one.Not at all. It's a direct counter to your silly claim that all D&D fights in every edition are difficult to escape. You're wrong about that. The fights in D&D, no matter the edition, are exactly as difficult to escape as the DM decides.
As long as they have hit points and they're not locked in, they PCs can always run. If that needs explaining, there are deeper issues that need to be talked about first.
Partial TPK just means short of a TPK like 50-75% of the party dying.We must not be using that abbreviation to mean the same thing. I'm using it to mean Total Party Kill. There's no such thing as a partial total something.
More often than not death just means rolling up a new character - which ok. A TPK just means everyone rolls up a new character. There are plenty of more fun/worse consequences than that.Only if it's the end of the game. As mentioned by me and a few other people, you can even make death or losing into a part of the game. Depending on how mythical or epic you want to go, it can be the most memorable part.
The DM still has to know how easy or hard the task the PCs are trying to accomplish is. You can't react if you have no idea what the PCs chances of success/failure are.There's your problem. Don't do that. It's not for the DM to plan. It's for the DM to react. The PCs want to go hunting a dragon at 1st level? Fine. Let's go. The PCs want to play politics in the big city? Fine. Let's go. the PCs want to raid goblin villages at 20th level? Fine. Let's go.
You're describing a true sandbox. Not all, probably not even a high % of games are run like that. Further, even in a true sandbox, the DM MUST know the relative difficulty of any given challenge. The situations you describe are obvious, but most are not. If the DM doesn't telegraph that certain encounters/situations are WAY above a groups paygrade -then cackles manically as they're brutally killed? that's not a good way to go.No, the DM doesn't. The PCs get to decide what they tackle and how difficult the challenges are. If they want to hunt dragons at 1st level...cool. Start rolling up new characters now because you'll need them. Want to walk all over CR1/8 monsters at 20th...cool...if utterly boring.
Run where? just because they can run, doesn't mean the opponents won't follow. There has to be some way for them to escape successfully, or it's just a trap option.Again, unless the door is locked, the path barred, and the PCs dead, they can always run.
Sorry, but a DM that builds a situation where the PCs are certain to die? That's a complete jerk move. It's basically a power fantasy where the DM may as well just read the outcome and not bother having the PCs even roll dice. A possibility of death, that's part of the game. A likelihood of death, as long as the PCs know what they signed up for - that can be great fun. A certainty of death - why even bother?The DM coddling the PCs and protecting them from their terrible choices is also a jerk move. The DM not playing the world with some sense of verisimilitude is also a jerk move. A hyper-intelligent lich scrying on an adventuring party and building the perfect counter to every one of their abilities is exactly what a hyper-intelligent lich would do. Anything less than that is coddling the players and being a jerk. Some fights are inescapable. Some fights are deadly. Some deadly fights are inescapable. A hyper-intelligent lich who can scry on the adventuring party and build the perfect counter to every one of their abilities is not likely to make it easy for the party to escape. Anything less breaks suspension of disbelief. If that seems unfair, tell it to the lich. I'm sure it'll be sympathetic. If the PCs are dumb enough to walk into a trap, then they're dumb enough to walk into a trap. It's only a jerk move if you don't telegraph it. Like old-school save or die stuff that's undetectable? Forget that noise.
That's a little reductive though. Not everyone is going to understand that the swing of a d20 is pretty big and that the range of possibilities may exist outside of their expectations. In my opinion, one can never be too careful about setting expectations ahead of time both in games and in life. It avoids a lot of issues downstream.It's not obvious that rolling a die produces a random number? Okay.
That assumes the monsters must chase them. That's simply not true. The DM can always have the monsters not chase the PCs. Just as the DM can always have the monsters not kill the PCs. If it makes sense for the monster to do those things, do them.This is simply not true. PCs OFTEN don't moves as fast/ or at least not faster than opponents.
As long as there's an exit, it's viable. Surrender is also always an option.The DM needs to consider fleeing as an option or it may not actually be a viable one.
So not a TPK, then. Got it.Partial TPK just means short of a TPK like 50-75% of the party dying.
An infinite variety. One of which is both killing the party and continuing to use those characters. There's a lich. It has raise dead. There is an underworld, many of them more than likely. Death might want something. Like maybe the pesky necromancer lich to stop taking all these people out of the underworld. Having death be the end is simply not using the fantasy milieu to its fullest.More often than not death just means rolling up a new character - which ok. A TPK just means everyone rolls up a new character. There are plenty of more fun/worse consequences than that.
One simply doesn't follow from the other. The DM can have the stats of the monsters and use them. The PCs have their in-character and in-game knowledge of the situation. The fun is seeing what happens next. I don't need to know ahead of time that the party has a 37.9% chance of victory before they engage with a fight.The DM still has to know how easy or hard the task the PCs are trying to accomplish is. You can't react if you have no idea what the PCs chances of success/failure are.
Sure.You're describing a true sandbox. Not all, probably not even a high % of games are run like that.
Patently false.Further, even in a true sandbox, the DM MUST know the relative difficulty of any given challenge.
The situation the OP is describing is obvious. If the PCs decide to last stand that fight, it's on them.The situations you describe are obvious, but most are not.
Agreed. I never said otherwise.If the DM doesn't telegraph that certain encounters/situations are WAY above a groups paygrade -then cackles manically as they're brutally killed? that's not a good way to go.
Literally anywhere the deadly fight is not. You know, away.Run where?
You mean the opponents that the DM controls? Yeah, hint: the DM controls them. Not following the PCs is absolutely a viable option.just because they can run, doesn't mean the opponents won't follow.
And no one's claiming otherwise.Sorry, but a DM that builds a situation where the PCs are certain to die? That's a complete jerk move.
Likewise, a certainty of success and everlasting life...why even bother?It's basically a power fantasy where the DM may as well just read the outcome and not bother having the PCs even roll dice. A possibility of death, that's part of the game. A likelihood of death, as long as the PCs know what they signed up for - that can be great fun. A certainty of death - why even bother?
Even if it's reduced to the binary options of success or failure, you still have both as possibilities. I mean, I don't know what to do if someone cannot comprehend that failure is a possibility. I agree that with a lot of modern players, especially ones in my games, you have to literally explain to them that failure is a possibility. I'd somewhat naively hoped it was limited to my table. Clearly not.That's a little reductive though. Not everyone is going to understand that the swing of a d20 is pretty big and that the range of possibilities may exist outside of their expectations. In my opinion, one can never be too careful about setting expectations ahead of time both in games and in life. It avoids a lot of issues downstream.