A word on "game-breaking"

[Hyde]

I've noticed that a lot of post deal with "how to make/avoid a broken whoozit".

And a lot of DM solutions seem to be to rip out the offending mechanic (I just read something in which two people suggested cutting wizards and/or druids entirely from their game), or to propose nerfs (Something pathfinder did with the druid and the entire polymorph subschool. Perhaps it's more in-line with the other casters/spells now, but they're also not very fun).

I've been playing the game for a long time now (ThAC0, anyone?) and I've developed my own philosophy on how to handle "broken" as a DM.

Firstly, I got nothing for you guys complaining about power levels between classes. I'm not entirely sure I even believe it. Poor build choices exist, but if everyone at the table is helping everyone else (maybe that doesn't happen in games were people don't really know each other) I really haven't had an issue with people having a good time.

Firstly (again), Everything the PCs can do, is more than open to the DM. DM's tend to railroad themselves into not making the kinds of choices that come with the territory. If a fight is going a little too poorly for the big bad, have his mysterious allies teleport in.

"But Hyyyyde, the module doesn't say there are mysterious allies."

Well hot damn, you just found your next adventure hook.

Secondly, monster statistics are written in ink, not stone. If it needs more hit points, give it more hit points. No one needs to know. If you're DMing for the types of players who bitch because the rulebook says that the monster has 167hp, and they did the math and they dealth 214hp, then shoot them.
Or find new players.
Or explain that it had something magical cast on it, and they weren't smart enough to cast decent hoodoo.
Or not give a ****, rule 0.

Thirdly. Your job as the DM is not to adhere to rules, but make sure that everyone's having fun. The rules are there for the PCs (I think that's why they call it the player's handbook. I'm not really sure). You'll notice that while the DMG has a few rules on it's own, the vast majority of them are guidelines.

"But Hyyyyyde, the rules lawyer said"

Hold on there, sparky. I get that futzing with what provokes an attack of opportunity and what exactly "is" is can get some players a little cranky. If a rule exists explicitly, then it's probably a good idea to leave it alone. I'm not talking about RAW or even RAI here. I'm talking about the unwritten stuff.

You don't need to go and hunt for a reason why your Big Bad can cast Flamestrike and Baleful Polymorph without also really liking trees. He just does.

Really, I could compile a bunch of crap and make it all pretty for DMs that are having a hard time. Is that something people would be interested in reading? Maybe there's someone already doing this, I dunno.

Long post short- Your job is to facilitate fun. While enforcing the rules is part of that, telling your players "no" is usually not. If you're consistently making more people angry than not, you're doing it wrong. (Making people angry because they touched a sphere of annihilation and now they don't exist isn't your problem though. I mean really, it's a black hole. They should know better.)

[gkathellar]

Firstly, I got nothing for you guys complaining about power levels between classes. I'm not entirely sure I even believe it.

Test of Spite did research. This is actually a documented phenomenon. (And after twelve years, it'd better be!) Not everyone's personal experiences reflect said documentation, but that doesn't change the facts.


If a fight is going a little too poorly for the big bad, have his mysterious allies teleport in.

This has nothing to do with dealing with "game-breaking" power, and is basically just advocating railroading.


Secondly, monster statistics are written in ink, not stone. If it needs more hit points, give it more hit points. No one needs to know. If you're DMing for the types of players who bitch because the rulebook says that the monster has 167hp, and they did the math and they dealth 214hp, then shoot them.

This basically shows a staggering misunderstanding of what optimized casters can do and why people have a problem with them - this isn't even a question of effortlessly dealing thousands of damage per round, it's one of the fact that optimized casters are prone to solving the Rubik's cube by taking the stickers off and rearranging them. "Game-breaking" power isn't doing 30 extra damage, it's about breaking the game's core assumptions. It's about casting spell resistance so that your can SR right past the Forbiddance effect on Mount Doom so you can drop the ring in the fire before the story has even begun.


I'm not talking about RAW or even RAI here. I'm talking about the unwritten stuff.

You don't need to go and hunt for a reason why your Big Bad can cast Flamestrike and Baleful Polymorph without also really liking trees. He just does.

So you're saying that the DM should just do whatever he wants, without regard for the mechanics of the game? You don't think that undermines the players even a little bit, or introduces any element of arbitrariness into play? Seriously?

And really, if you think that, why bother playing a rules-heavy game like D&D? There are easier systems to run that are actually built around this attitude.


Long post short- Your job is to facilitate fun. While enforcing the rules is part of that, telling your players "no" is usually not. If you're consistently making more people angry than not, you're doing it wrong. (Making people angry because they touched a sphere of annihilation and now they don't exist isn't your problem though. I mean really, it's a black hole. They should know better.)

I ... don't understand how this has any relation to anything you say above it.

[GreenSerpent]

As a responce to your comments about Power Levels between classes, I direct you to the Tier List and the Explanations.

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0

I hope that helps. It shows exactly how some classes are totally gamebreaking and some are terrible. Someone here proved a while ago that a Fighter was WORSE than a Druid class feature, the Animal Companion.

Also, people don't like feeling redundant - why have the Rogue pick a lock when the Wizard casts knock and gets it open quicker and easier?

[Manateee]

If you're trivializing the tactical gameplay element, why play a game with hundreds of pages of rules dedicated to its tactical gameplay element?

[Big Fau]

I'd like to reiterate a statement I've practically tattooed on my hands: Your personal experiences may not match the evidence put forth by the optimization community. However, your personal experiences do not invalidate the facts. It is, therefore, best to ignore personal experiences when dealing with rules discussions.



In other words: YMMV, but facts are facts.

[Rossebay]

No, gka, he's not saying anything that leads us to, "Why don't you just free form roleplay?" Now you're getting a little ridiculous.

But, if there's an unbreakable wall in front of the players, magically made and manufactured that way, so literally nothing can break it, and even Mk's Disjunction can't stop it? Well, he's the DM, and he said so. So it happens.

He's saying that when things get dicey, and players make commoner rail guns, drop the "No." hammer on them. "Sorry, but, that doesn't work. Don't try it again."
Boom, done.

Not, "Wow. I don't like that rule. Pretend it doesn't exist. Oh, and pretend that there is no Attack option. Yeah."
None of that was hinted at.

[gkathellar]

-snip-

It's one thing to lay down these things beforehand. It's entirely another to decide the enemy's HP on the fly simply because things aren't going according to your expectations as the DM - it reeks of railroading, and of fiat in places where fiat application is makes the game essentially equivalent to free-form roleplaying.

The fact is that if you redefine the goalposts constantly so that the players can only ever act within your scenario, as opposed to acting on your scenario as they should be enabled to, then you may as well do free-form roleplaying because their ability to use the mechanics actually doesn't matter.

[Rossebay]

-snip-

True, but it's also one of the occasional coping mechanisms that a DM must use. As a bit of a Power Gamer myself, and a notorious Tier 2-3 Player while doing so, I've had situations where the GM had to have an, "Oh, ****." moment, and change the way physics worked for a moment, simply because I put him in check-mate when he thought he was still setting up pawns.

There are times when it's necessary to keep the fun going.

There are also times where the Hobgoblins keep multiplying because you're killing them too fast... :smallfurious:

[gkathellar]

True, but it's also one of the occasional coping mechanisms that a DM must use. As a bit of a Power Gamer myself, and a notorious Tier 2-3 Player while doing so, I've had situations where the GM had to have an, "Oh, ****." moment, and change the way physics worked for a moment, simply because I put him in check-mate when he thought he was still setting up pawns.

Which is basically the problem with the system as is. Certainly I recognize it as such, and others do as well. But what the OP suggests is exactly the wrong approach to solving that problem, because it removes player agency as opposed to simply giving player a framework of limits that they need to work within (and bear in mind that limits can be established through relative power, even if the highest levels of power aren't reduced).

As you say - the hobgoblins shouldn't multiply because you're killing them too fast.

[balistafreak]

As you say - the hobgoblins shouldn't multiply because you're killing them too fast.

It is somewhat acceptable for the next squad of hobgoblins to suddenly undergo perfect fission if you inform your players that "this was supposed to be a challenge, mind if I up the ante?" and they say yes.

Having hobgoblins swarm in from nowhere midcombat just because you need more mooks... gods, that brings back memories of old FPS's where you could sometimes have a platoon walk out of a broom closet because you didn't walk far forward enough to flag the "enemies can't spawn here" flag.

Or just, you know, Left 4 Dead, where you get zombies spewing out of bathroom stalls. :smallamused:

It generally breaks immersion, which in most cases is A Bad Thing.

[Manateee]

I have a strange compulsion to play chess, but every time someone takes one of my pieces, put it back on the board. And every time someone gets a checkmate, have two more kings pop up somewhere.

[Amphetryon]

It is somewhat acceptable for the next squad of hobgoblins to suddenly undergo perfect fission if you inform your players that "this was supposed to be a challenge, mind if I up the ante?" and they say yes.

Having hobgoblins swarm in from nowhere midcombat just because you need more mooks... gods, that brings back memories of old FPS's where you could sometimes have a platoon walk out of a broom closet because you didn't walk far forward enough to flag the "enemies can't spawn here" flag.

Or just, you know, Left 4 Dead, where you get zombies spewing out of bathroom stalls. :smallamused:

It generally breaks immersion, which in most cases is A Bad Thing.
What about a scenario where you intended for backup to appear like that on round 3 (frex), regardless of how the combat was going? Is it still breaking immersion? Is it still A Bad Thing? Finally, how do the PCs know if it's all part of your Xanatos Gambit or on-the-fly adjustment for a string of bad rolls?

[Saintheart]

You don't need to go and hunt for a reason why your Big Bad can cast Flamestrike and Baleful Polymorph without also really liking trees.

No, because the answer's right there in Champions of Ruin, p. 43 -- Node Magic. The node itself grants spells of any variety to an evil spellcaster...wait, what were we talking about again? :smallamused:

[gkathellar]

What about a scenario where you intended for backup to appear like that on round 3 (frex), regardless of how the combat was going? Is it still breaking immersion? Is it still A Bad Thing? Finally, how do the PCs know if it's all part of your Xanatos Gambit or on-the-fly adjustment for a string of bad rolls?

There's a place for on-the-fly adjustment or slight modifications, certainly - but it shouldn't be a habit, and it's false to characterize it as any kind of solution for the problematic imbalances of the game. That's the real issue.

[balistafreak]

Finally, how do the PCs know if it's all part of your Xanatos Gambit or on-the-fly adjustment for a string of bad rolls?

A GM has tells, generally. If the PCs are making mincemeat of an encounter that you didn't expect them to, it's often clear when they're fumbling to make something harder than it was. Hesitations, flurries of activity behind the screen when they claimed to have all their notes set up already, and most tellingly of all, obviously made-up reasons. A dozen hobgoblins return "uuuh, from patrols probably" into a camp for four, for example.

Now, if the GM is able to keep his composure, and answer all my questions of "where did they come from?" with a jaunty look and a waggle of eyebrows, more power to him, but if it's clear he's trying to compensate mid-encounter I lose respect.

[Hiro Protagonest]

There's a place for on-the-fly adjustment or slight modifications, certainly - but it shouldn't be a habit, and it's false to characterize it as any kind of solution for the problematic imbalances of the game. That's the real issue.

I think the "balance problems don't exist because of the DM" thing is called the Oberoni Fallacy.

In fact, I'm sure of it.

[Amphetryon]

There's a place for on-the-fly adjustment or slight modifications, certainly - but it shouldn't be a habit, and it's false to characterize it as any kind of solution for the problematic imbalances of the game. That's the real issue.

The first part of my question was about re-enforcements coming mid-combat regardless of the tenor of the combat, because it appears from here that such re-enforcements are A Bad Thing And Unfun in the board's consensus opinion if they're spontaneous, and A Good Thing And Exciting by the same consensus if they're planned for. I'm still not sure how the players know with certainty which is which, without access to the DM's Liner Notes.

[sonofzeal]

The first part of my question was about re-enforcements coming mid-combat regardless of the tenor of the combat, because it appears from here that such re-enforcements are A Bad Thing And Unfun in the board's consensus opinion if they're spontaneous, and A Good Thing And Exciting by the same consensus if they're planned for. I'm still not sure how the players know with certainty which is which, without access to the DM's Liner Notes.
As others have mentioned, there are usually tells. I disagree that it's a critical issue either way, but yeah there's usually ways to tell.

[Sucrose]

The first part of my question was about re-enforcements coming mid-combat regardless of the tenor of the combat, because it appears from here that such re-enforcements are A Bad Thing And Unfun in the board's consensus opinion if they're spontaneous, and A Good Thing And Exciting by the same consensus if they're planned for. I'm still not sure how the players know with certainty which is which, without access to the DM's Liner Notes.


A GM has tells, generally. If the PCs are making mincemeat of an encounter that you didn't expect them to, it's often clear when they're fumbling to make something harder than it was. Hesitations, flurries of activity behind the screen when they claimed to have all their notes set up already, and most tellingly of all, obviously made-up reasons. A dozen hobgoblins return "uuuh, from patrols probably" into a camp for four, for example.

Now, if the GM is able to keep his composure, and answer all my questions of "where did they come from?" with a jaunty look and a waggle of eyebrows, more power to him, but if it's clear he's trying to compensate mid-encounter I lose respect.

The answer precedes the question.

DMs are not remotely as good at hiding their emotions as you seem to think. I can tell when my DM is getting irritated during a combat, generally, and we play via IRC.

[jaybird]

Now, if the GM is able to keep his composure, and answer all my questions of "where did they come from?" with a jaunty look and a waggle of eyebrows, more power to him, but if it's clear he's trying to compensate mid-encounter I lose respect.

Well, if you'd rather roll over four encounters/day, rinse and repeat, sure, but I know my players would much rather be out of Fate, in Critical Wound territory, and standing over the corpses of some seriously tough enemies. Different system, but same idea.

Of course, that doesn't change the basic point of balance issues...

[Amphetryon]

The answer precedes the question.

DMs are not remotely as good at hiding their emotions as you seem to think. I can tell when my DM is getting irritated during a combat, generally, and we play via IRC.
I am a DM. I have planned encounters this way. Personally, I have not used the "oops, killshot, better add more bad guys" line of reasoning since around the Reagan administration, if memory serves. I'm asking - aside from players who are experts at reading tells - what the difference is in the game between a DM that spontaneously increases the size of the opposing force and a DM who intends for the opposing force to grow at some point during the encounter, because one is apparently good gaming, and one is apparently bad gaming. If you have fun with the DM who plans to have two encounters string together or staggers a given encounter so it feels like the enemy comes in waves, why does it become unfun when it happens more spontaneously?

[Sucrose]

I am a DM. I have planned encounters this way. Personally, I have not used the "oops, killshot, better add more bad guys" line of reasoning since around the Reagan administration, if memory serves. I'm asking - aside from players who are experts at reading tells - what the difference is in the game between a DM that spontaneously increases the size of the opposing force and a DM who intends for the opposing force to grow at some point during the encounter, because one is apparently good gaming, and one is apparently bad gaming. If you have fun with the DM who plans to have two encounters string together or staggers a given encounter so it feels like the enemy comes in waves, why does it become unfun when it happens more spontaneously?

For the same reason that taking down the enemy's last HP is more satisfying than the DM deciding 'eh, you've fought for long enough' and having the enemy fall dead. One is a legitimate tactical challenge that was overcome, the other was the DM toying with you. Even if both were about as tough, there is a qualitative difference between the two scenarios. And, again, we can generally tell the difference.

[Amphetryon]

For the same reason that taking down the enemy's last HP is more satisfying than the DM deciding 'eh, you've fought for long enough' and having the enemy fall dead. One is a legitimate tactical challenge that was overcome, the other was the DM toying with you. Even if both were about as tough, there is a qualitative difference between the two scenarios. And, again, we can generally tell the difference.
As I don't know how you're determining the first either without encyclopedic knowledge of all the monsters, knowledge that the monsters are all run by the book, and certainty that the DM uses a given level of NPC based on your level with a given and transparent rubric for HP, I'm afraid I'll have to settle for being confused on this issue.

[Lord_Gareth]

As I don't know how you're determining the first either without encyclopedic knowledge of all the monsters, knowledge that the monsters are all run by the book, and certainty that the DM uses a given level of NPC based on your level with a given and transparent rubric for HP, I'm afraid I'll have to settle for being confused on this issue.

Again, tells - I can tell you just off the cuff when a DM is fudging things beyond their plans. Some of 'em are easier than others - there's one in town that believes in player entitlement and 'PCs don't die!' even when the rest of us don't - but they all tip their hand about it in the end.

[balistafreak]

As I don't know how you're determining the first either without encyclopedic knowledge of all the monsters, knowledge that the monsters are all run by the book, and certainty that the DM uses a given level of NPC based on your level with a given and transparent rubric for HP, I'm afraid I'll have to settle for being confused on this issue.

Because the DM tends to be relatively calm and collected if everything is going according to plan, and turning red in the face, stuttering out actions, and is slow to react to player requests if he's too busy trying to "salvage" his encounter instead of letting the encounter go as it is and planning a better next encounter... later.

Granted, even in planned encounters I've "taken five" where I've literally stopped play for five minutes (players often take the opportunity to go to the bathroom), consulted the board, consulted my notes, and decided what the next few most logical turns would look like. This is because I consider obviously being flustered behind the screen to be unprofessional.

To obviously improvise things just to "slow the players down" or "give them a hard time" verisimilitude be darned, to be even more so.

Resistance should come when warranted - not because Random Mook Squad #17 got wiped out in one round when you expected them to last at least three.

[Sucrose]

As I don't know how you're determining the first either without encyclopedic knowledge of all the monsters, knowledge that the monsters are all run by the book, and certainty that the DM uses a given level of NPC based on your level with a given and transparent rubric for HP, I'm afraid I'll have to settle for being confused on this issue.

Because DMs can be read. Even over text. And it is not difficult. You don't need to be 'an expert at reading tells.' I am one of the most socially awkward people you are likely to meet, and I can read it.

[navar100]

I can tell when my DM makes stuff up because we outsmarted him. One instance was so glaring I still remember it nearly two years later. We're in a very large dungeon room. With some bad guys in front of us, there were many archers and a couple of spellcasters way in the back. It was going to be a tough battle. Our Cerebremancer took care of that. He casted Wall Of Force, blocking the archers and spellcasters from attacking us. We were able to deal with the bad guys in front of us with ease. Brilliant move.

What did the archers do? They shot the wall with Wall of Force piercing arrows. WTF?! They didn't break the wall right a way. We got a couple of good rounds before we had to deal with them again, but really! Wall Of Force piercing arrows?! Totally made up on the spot to recover from being outsmarted. It strains credulity the bad guys always had such arrows for the encounter.

What he should have done to camouflage the situation was have one of the spellcasters cast Disintegrate to destroy the wall. Even if it was made up on the spot, it would at least have plausibility the bad guy had the spell. We'd get our free round against the bad guys in front of us, and the bad guy spellcaster was less one 6th level spell, a nasty one not used against a party member. Continue combat as normal.

As it is, we defeated them anyway and got three Wall Of Force piercing arrows in treasure, which did help a couple of game sessions later.

[Hyde]

Clarification seems in order.

First, I don't believe in railroading, even a little. Reigning in ADD players? sometimes.

Looking at the tier thing, I mostly agree with it. I also think it's rather comical that an npc class is on par with/ superior than some PC classes.

What I'm really disagreeing with is the idea that solving an issue of "broken" by simply removing the class from the game is not solving the issue at all. I will maintain that "broken" classes can get seriously out of hand ESPECIALLY when the player is experienced and the DM is less than confident in his own abilities and authority. It happens.

I maintain that these characters can be handled with a bit of careful DMing. A good example comes from the comic that's conveniently attached to the forum :)

V is a pretty powerful wizard enough that (at the time) s/he could spam disintegrate without really caring. And then the black dragon happened. I'm not advocating throwing a dragon at each individual PC, but it demonstrates that as much as magic does, it also undoes. We can go on to examine SS (soul splice, not super-saiyan, though that works too) V as a counterexample, if you want, since it pretty much trounced the black dragon by applying even more arcane might.

But then Xykon, right?

Sure, the comic bends rules for the sake of the story, so when we're discussing straight mechanics, it doesn't translate well. But I think it works as an illustration of what I'm talking about. The more power you have, the better things will go for you, as long as nothing is all that prepared for it (which, incidentally, is the case with most dungeon crawls, as far as I know). But when you're not prepared for something else?


But if we're talking about vs other classes... yeah, no problem. Things aren't equal, nor do I believe they should be. Maybe they could be more equal, but their answer to that was 4th edition, and it honestly got really boring.

I don't really like Pathfinder's approach to things, though it seems to be a little more stable than 3.5 core. Polymorph and the like just aren't even fun spells anymore.

[Hyde]

I can tell when my DM makes stuff up because we outsmarted him. One instance was so glaring I still remember it nearly two years later. We're in a very large dungeon room. With some bad guys in front of us, there were many archers and a couple of spellcasters way in the back. It was going to be a tough battle. Our Cerebremancer took care of that. He casted Wall Of Force, blocking the archers and spellcasters from attacking us. We were able to deal with the bad guys in front of us with ease. Brilliant move.

What did the archers do? They shot the wall with Wall of Force piercing arrows. WTF?! They didn't break the wall right a way. We got a couple of good rounds before we had to deal with them again, but really! Wall Of Force piercing arrows?! Totally made up on the spot to recover from being outsmarted. It strains credulity the bad guys always had such arrows for the encounter.

What he should have done to camouflage the situation was have one of the spellcasters cast Disintegrate to destroy the wall. Even if it was made up on the spot, it would at least have plausibility the bad guy had the spell. We'd get our free round against the bad guys in front of us, and the bad guy spellcaster was less one 6th level spell, a nasty one not used against a party member. Continue combat as normal.

As it is, we defeated them anyway and got three Wall Of Force piercing arrows in treasure, which did help a couple of game sessions later.
Wow, wall of force piercing weapons?

While amusing, definitely not the kind of on-the-fly correction I had in mind. Perhaps more cool (But I'm gonna say equally transparent) would be arrows that temporarily skip through the astral plane.

I mean, if you're gonna just say a mechanic no longer works, make it interesting.

But yeah, spellcaster having disintegrate is the right choice for that situation, is the crux of my entire argument.

[Hyde]

I haven't ever used the "oh look, there are more monsters, tee hee" personally.

but from the various descriptions of your DMs, with the frustration and the what have you, I'm getting a picture of what is perhaps a fundamental misunderstanding between where we're coming from.

I don't see DnD as the DM vs. the PCs. When that happens, someone inevitably gets angry. Usually because they bought a Blindfold of True darkness to combat the umpteenth monster with a gaze attack in those friggen caves, and after the first time its useful (always) the DM decides well, maybe it's too powerful, let's give it a really mundane way of defeating it's Blindsight, for no adequately explained reason, rather than maybe come up with an enemy with the darkstalker feat.

But how often does that come up? -.-

So when I said I've given monsters more hit points, or something, it's usually because I find the encounters lacking, even when all the rules say it should be an adequate challenge. I'm not trying to grind the players characters into dust, or trivialize their abilities. I upped the hp because it was the right pacing for the encounter to last just a leetle longer, for the PCs to feel just a leetle threatened.

As a side question- I switched to 4e for awhile, and we decided to go to Pathfinder, because no one really wanted to go back to straight 3.5

Half of that sentence is irrelevant.

Anyway, at the same time, I also handed the reigns over to our other DM, who is totes one of those "gets angry if everything isn't just so" types.

Half of that sentence is also irrelevant.

So we're playing this module... Lost something or other of Iggwilv, that he's converted to Pathfinder (which I guess involves adding CMBs to everything. I dunno) and we're trouncing everything in two rounds.

Or less.

The only thing that gave us even a little trouble was a Beholder, and that was something like EL 15 or more, for our 11th level party (of six)

It lasted three rounds.

So the question is... is that about how long combat is supposed to be lasting, because it seems like we just trounce everything without breaking a sweat.

Except for that frenzied berserker. got him to -368 HP. I wonder if he did that wrong.

[ArcGygas]

...

So we're playing this module... Lost something or other of Iggwilv, that he's converted to Pathfinder (which I guess involves adding CMBs to everything. I dunno) and we're trouncing everything in two rounds...

The Lost Vault of Iggwilv is a wonderful campaign and your GM should be both praised for using while being beaten with a rabid badger for desecrating by playing it in non-2nd edition games.

... No, I am not in love with that module, you're just imagining it...

Anyways, to remain on topic, I agree that job one of the GM is to make the group have fun and telling a story. Adding HP to a boss and just saying "Okay, he's dead -now-" is kind of rude to the players. If you've maxed out his HP every level beforehand because you know the group would mulch him in one shot is fine, so long as you're not doing it arbitrarily.

That's understanding just how powerful the group is while not using DM fiat to screw with everyone.

And tossing in extra mooks because the group killed the first wave too quick is a no-no. If they were there to begin with, fine. That's planning and perhaps a way to give the group credit for taking out the first group quickly and quietly.

But never should the game devolve into GM vs. Players style. Feelings get hurt then and no one has a good time. If that's -your- play style, keep me out of it.

[Hyde]

Well, this was the 3.5e rebuild of the 2e module, I'm pretty sure.

Straight up, no, I'd never futz with a fight because it was too easy. It's very much a "would they have more fun if this lasted a little longer" type question.

Also, there's a reason that "No plan survives contact with the enemy" is a saying. Part of being a successful DM is allowing for the fact that on occasion, you'll just have planned poorly, and some on the fly adjustments will be necessary at some point.

They need to make sense, though. Certainly not force-piercing arrows.

Man, that's gold.

[Mystify]

If your intended boss mob is light on hp, there are clear rules for advancing it and making it tougher. If the entire party is fighting like a group 5 levels higher, then throw enemies that are 5 levels higher to compensate. Its quite easy to explain, and its the same explanation for why groups fight on-CR enemies:
people naturally seek out appropriate challenges. A level 20 character is not even going to glance at the offer to kill out a local orc tribe. Sure, he could do it without breaking a sweat, but it would have no payoff. Likewise, if a great wyrm dragon starts attacking a city, the level 5 group isn't going to go deal with it. Sure, the treasure hoard may make them rich beyond their wildest dreams, but they would never survive it. Such decisions and interactions are implicit, so the result is characters encountering on-level enemies. If they happen across a low-level enemy, they are either scary enough that it runs away, or the battle isn't any more noteworthy than the mosquito you swatted while walking through the swamp, and might not even get a passing mention. You might find over-powered enemies by chance, but then you run away.
Similarly, there is a natural balance between the strength of the minion and the strength of the boss. A level 20 evil guy is not going to have level 1 mooks forming the forces the party must fight through to get him. He will have people of a high enough level to be a threat, but still weaker than him so he is clearly in charge.
Hence the game-play convenient phenomenon of having a lot of on-level encounters with suitably powerful bosses.
So if the party can devastate an on-CR encounter, they should obviously not be concerning themselves with those enemies, and go after something that offers better rewards. Hence, you fight what provides an appropriate encounter, not what the CR system says you should be fighting.
So if the enemy you want to throw at the party is too weak for them, you can follow the rules and advance it. Its now a CR 13 monster instead of a CR 10, and you are going by the rules.
The rules are important to follow, as much as possible. It gives the players a clear framework to operate in. They can tell that action x will result in outcome y, and may be countered by z, etc. This allows the players to make meaningful decisions. There is a squadron of archers over there? I can use a wall of force to protect us. I know the archers can't penetrate it, which makes this a strong tactical move that will give us a huge advantage. That type of interaction is key to interesting gameplay. You want battles to hinge on the tactics the party employs, not simply the numbers they toss around. If the players perform a stroke of tactical genius, and it makes the encounter easier than you expected, good for them. That should be encouraged, not countered by bringing in reinforcements.
The problem is that casters get abilities that swing battles like that all over the place. It is no longer a clever tactical gambit, it is an "I win" button that they are getting by the dozen. Polymorph is thematically cool, but it becomes an access to 5 dozen new "I win" buttons. Every new monster printed adds new possible abilities to gain via polymorph, making it even more powerful. It does not have a fixed set of things it can accomplish, making it, by its nature, a spell that grows in power as content is released. Look at other spells. They tend to do very clearly defined things. I make water. I crate an explosion. I turn invisible. Then you have polymorph. I turn into a monster of my choosing and get access to whatever abilities it happens to have. And believe me, there are abilities they can get with polymorph that they should not have. Pathfinder nerfed it, and gave it a fixed set of abilities it could duplicate. I think they went a bit too far, but the concept was needed.
Contrast this with a fighter. They swing a sword and kill things. They may have a damage output to contribute, but casters can make that irrelevant. They may be good at melee, but a caster can be better. The caster can not only counter combat, they can counter the plot. By countering combat, they can undermine gameplay. By breaking the plot, they undermine the game. "Ok, we;ll have an epic journey across the kingdom to reach the evil volcano..." "telelport". "ok, we'll try to find an artifact stolen from a collector..." "Find item". "You have come down with a horrible disease, and must seek out the rare cure..." "Cure disease" "There is a dragon..." "Chilling touch. Reach. and split ray. " "There is a demon..." "Banish" "You must sneak past these guys..." "superior invisibility" "There is alocked door" "knock" "There is a stone vault with no doors" "passwall" "There is this really angry assassin trying to kill you" "contigent greater teleport" "He has an item to follow you. He attacks you. "Repulsion, he can't approach." "He uses arrows" "wind wall" "He shoots a ray" "ray deflection" "he makes his save and approaches anyway. He swings" "abrupt jaunt" "He's past the windwall, so he can fire his arrows now." .... two hours later .... "I finally managed to kill your wizard, after throwing 10 million assasins at him at the same time!" "Lol, no, that was just my astral projection".
Granted, most campaigns don't work like that in practice. But the thing is, they can. That wasn't doing anything questionable, that was all straight, vanilla usage of spells in direct ways doing what they are meant to. There is nothing there you could reasonably ban. You end up reliant on the person to underplay the wizard or to play them in a way that fosters the parties efforts. That avoids the problem, but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. I've seen groups where characters have accidentally outclassed other characters, and it was a problem.
A properly designed wizard class would be closer to "I give the party an advantage in solving this problem/encounter/quest", not "I solve this problem/encounter/quest". They can be played in the former way, and it works well enough. But they easily possess the latter abilities.
Now, ideally you know you players, and know they will play their spellcaster in a conducive manner. If they don't, hopefully you can convince them to do it anyways. If they find a "hole" in the rules, either accidentally or intentionally, as DM you should fix it. The commoner rail-gun is a clear place where the DM can say " Thats not how things actually work, you are mixing RAW and physics in an incompatible way", or with a wish loop they can step in and break it.
I'm just rambling now so I'll stop typing and post.

[Lonely Tylenol]

As I don't know how you're determining the first either without encyclopedic knowledge of all the monsters, knowledge that the monsters are all run by the book, and certainty that the DM uses a given level of NPC based on your level with a given and transparent rubric for HP, I'm afraid I'll have to settle for being confused on this issue.

When the DM declares that the Big Bad is dead the very first hit after one of your PC buddies drops to -10, the DM has said in no uncertain terms that you're "The Chosen Ones" and are thus central to the plot, and the only in-world resurrection spell is Revivify (or whichever one clerics can cast only a round after the target died), the DM is toying with you.

This happened in the same campaign three times out of three deaths.

NO PC is stupid enough to miss that sign.

Or how about--you guys'll love this one--this is the one that kicked off the session I quit that same campaign over.

7th level wizard, running through this Yuan-Ti castle (I seem to be talking about this place a lot, but it keeps popping up), second floor, we're about to enter into one of the tower stairwells. There's a door at the end of a large room. Scout goes to check it out. I say, "I'll go with you."

We open the door, and two archers at the top of the stairwell get a surprise round! Each of the archers shoot with their bows! Both hit my wizard (somehow; I saw those rolls, and they were terrible)! Roll two Fort saves to avoid Con damage on the arrows and--

I remind the DM that Reverse Arrows is on the list of spells I cast before entering this castle, and given the time frame of the adventure so far, was still active. Since neither arrow was magic or did at least 10 damage, they both got reversed. One hits (I rolled in the open), the target makes his save.

Then, in the same surprise round, each of the archers whips out bolas, flings them down the stairs at us (no attack roll, just Reflex save to avoid falling on your rear; this is not, of course, how bolas work). The Scout succeeds; I fail. Then, the archers trigger a chest-high wall that shoots up from the floor and hide behind it (hooray for cover-based shooters!).

After being told it's a DC 20 Strength check (!) to break free (my modifier was -1), a DC 18 Escape Artist check and standard action to wriggle free, and a DC 15 Balance check and a move action to stand up followed by another DC 15 Balance check to do anything after standing up (such as casting a spell, loading or firing a crossbow, or trying to cut yourself free; note, this is also not how bolas work), I failed a few Balance checks before finally succeeding and letting loose with a Fiery Burst up the hill. The DM tells me to make a Reflex save for half damage (two types of energy resistance are on my routine, but they were keyed to electricity and acid), oh, and also, your friends next to you got hit too. I frown and ask how it is possible that these archers have spell turning. He tells me the chest-high wall deflects magic.

(EDIT: worth noting is that the DM decreed that detect magic was an always-on ability, but that there was never any mention made of the wall being magical, or of any of us noticing any magical auras, until after I burned myself and then asked about it, after which I was told I detected "strong Abjuration".)

A few turns later, the Bard lets fly with a magic missile from a wand. He nods and tells her to roll for damage. I protest. "Why does her spell go through, but mine doesn't?"

"Oh," he says, "the wall only affects AoEs."

Or maybe the time (a month prior to this last example) that all five enemies received full-round actions in the surprise round in response to a casting of slow that I initiated with a readied standard actions as a response to one of the thugs pulling a knife on the Druid on the other side of the room. (All five then spent their entire turn attempting to disrupt my casting of slow, even though I had made specific mention of the fact that I was casting as discreetly and quietly as possible, and three of them were around the corner and had no idea of where I was, visually; two of these three went first).

You can usually tell which instances are deliberate scaling or combining of encounters, and which are hastily constructed back door solutions to an unforeseen problem, or escalation, or toying, because the former happens in some intelligible fashion, and the latter often looks more like this. A more talented DM might be willing and able to cover it up, but a more talented DM often doesn't often fall into the problem of "unforeseen solution undermines challenge of problem" pitfall (and usually doesn't go looking for a hasty constructed back door solution when they do), making the difference between the two, handled by a skilled DM, entirely academic.

Your mileage may vary.

[gkathellar]

Sure, the comic bends rules for the sake of the story, so when we're discussing straight mechanics, it doesn't translate well. But I think it works as an illustration of what I'm talking about. The more power you have, the better things will go for you, as long as nothing is all that prepared for it (which, incidentally, is the case with most dungeon crawls, as far as I know). But when you're not prepared for something else?

On the one hand, proactive players deserve proactive enemies. On the other hand, making things up whenever a player attempts to be proactive is essentially saying "No! Bad lateral thinker!"


So when I said I've given monsters more hit points, or something, it's usually because I find the encounters lacking, even when all the rules say it should be an adequate challenge. I'm not trying to grind the players characters into dust, or trivialize their abilities.

One way or another, it does trivialize their abilities. If the monster has Schrodinger's hitpoints, than it actually doesn't matter how much damage the player deals. There are times when it's the right move - but they're a lot rarer than DMs who often do this think. Players should, again, act on your scenario, not within it.


The only thing that gave us even a little trouble was a Beholder, and that was something like EL 15 or more, for our 11th level party (of six)

It lasted three rounds.

Are you honestly surprised? Single opponents decrease in relevance rapidly as the game heads into higher levels, because of action economy and rocket tag. With six eleventh level characters wailing on a single monster, three rounds is perfectly reasonable.

This really sounds like a case of the DM not preparing for or expecting his party's actual capabilities, which is to be fair a common problem in using adventure modules.


So the question is... is that about how long combat is supposed to be lasting, because it seems like we just trounce everything without breaking a sweat.

Combat is generally supposed to last about 4-5 rounds. If it's not doing that, then your DM needs to adjust his tactics in a larger sense, and fudging the numbers is not a real solution.


First, I don't believe in railroading, even a little. Reigning in ADD players? sometimes.

It is in poor taste to use the names for legitimate mental disorders outside of their intended context as insults or other terms of negativity.

[Mystify]

On the one hand, proactive players deserve proactive enemies. On the other hand, making things up whenever a player attempts to be proactive is essentially saying "No! Bad lateral thinker!"



One way or another, it does trivialize their abilities. If the monster has Schrodinger's hitpoints, than it actually doesn't matter how much damage the player deals. There are times when it's the right move - but they're a lot rarer than DMs who often do this think. Players should, again, act on your scenario, not within it.



Are you honestly surprised? Single opponents decrease in relevance rapidly as the game heads into higher levels, because of action economy and rocket tag. With six eleventh level characters wailing on a single monster, three rounds is perfectly reasonable.

This really sounds like a case of the DM not preparing for or expecting his party's actual capabilities, which is to be fair a common problem in using adventure modules.



Combat is generally supposed to last about 4-5 rounds. If it's not doing that, then your DM needs to adjust his tactics in a larger sense, and fudging the numbers is not a real solution.



It is in poor taste to use the names for legitimate mental disorders outside of their intended context as insults or other terms of negativity.
I agree with all of this. You should not be scripting a session, you should be providing a scenario for the players to interact with. This often involves them running through the scenario as planned; if that is the logical course of action, then they will likely do it. If its not the logical course of action, why do you think they should do it? You have to be ready for players to do something you don't anticipate, of course.
At the encounter level, it should be "Here is this situation, figure out how to use your abilities to deal with it". If they do so in a manner more efficient than you anticipated, great for them. A combat does not need to be challenging to be fun. In fact, trying to skew the combat to be challenging will likely make it unfun, as you are countering the impact of what they are doing. It is funner for the player's gambits to work. Sure, it might make the combat easier, but then the player gets to bask in the realization that their action has a profound impact, and was a really good decision. You should reward good decisions. That does not mean that you shouldn't adapt to their gambit, but you should do so within the parameters of the scenario, not through adding in some arbitrary counter.
Gameplay is about decisions. Its not about rolling dice to rack up damage. Some of those decisions are made before the encounter. Character creation is a long list of decisions with profound impact on the game. What prep work the players do is a decision, what equipment they bought. Within the combat, you have decisions on where to move, what abilities to utilize, what tactics to employ. Rolling the dice is not the game. Rolling the dice is simply part of seeing how your decisions fit together. Anything that changes that makes those decisions irrelevant, and undermines the entire game. Thats part of why I dislike DMs fudging rolls, either for or against the party. You are now undercutting the decisions they made. You turned that lethal blow sub-lethal? Well, now you invalidated their decision to take weapon focus instead of improved toughness. It was a meaningless decision, as they survived like they would have with improved toughness, but they get the bonus from weapon focus. Even a small ability can matter. I had a character survive a breath attack from a pyrohydra due to his 2 fire resistance from a feat, coupled with his successful reflex save. If I would have fudged his death anyways, those abilities would have become irrelevant. Likewise, if the character puts resources into penetrating SR, so I fudge the creature's SR higher so it will still work, then I have invalidated their build. I once hada DM tell me "I know you are really good at theivery, so this DC will be higher". Yeah, thanks for invalidating all the choices I made to get my theivery that high.
I'm rambling again. I seem to be in ramble mode tonight.

[Kalmageddon]

This thread is funny because I usually find myself in the opposite position: I tend to be the DM in my gaming group and apparently I am very good at putting togheter plans and encounters, to the point that nearly every plan my players make up will fail miserably.

The funny part is that I don't even do it on purpose and when I hear them putting togheter their plan I try to point out at the flaws with disctetion, which only makes them panic more and usually results in a plan that sounds like "we all charge screaming wildly while one of us does something that is supposed to turn a suicidal charge into a victory for us".
It doesn't work.

And all of this while adhering to the ruleset pretty closely (I sometimes make up a magical item, but it's usually to make it available to the players, not to the enemies)

[Mystify]

This thread is funny because I usually find myself in the opposite position: I tend to be the DM in my gaming group and apparently I am very good at putting togheter plans and encounters, to the point that nearly every plan my players make up will fail miserably.

The funny part is that I don't even do it on purpose and when I hear them putting togheter their plan I try to point out at the flaws with disctetion, which only makes them panic more and usually results in a plan that sounds like "we all charge screaming wildly while one of us does something that is supposed to turn a suicidal charge into a victory for us".
It doesn't work.

And all of this while adhering to the ruleset pretty closely (I sometimes make up a magical item, but it's usually to make it available to the players, not to the enemies)
I had an interesting phenomenon occur once. I killed half the party, and they got stronger. Specifically, all of the front line characters charge the T. Rex and got eatern before they brought it down. The party now consisted of a couple of spellcasters and a rogue. They proceeded to enter a dinosaur hunting competition. Without any front-liners. They went from "The barbarian charges in with his axe" to setting up decoys and using summons to distract things. The end result was they won the dinosaur hunting competition by a large margin, having significantly outperformed my expectations(My expectations including a full party), without even getting hurt, and had a pet seismosaur(Those things are HUGE). The party was fully capable of using advanced tactics, once I took away the reckless barbarian.

[Kalmageddon]

I had an interesting phenomenon occur once. I killed half the party, and they got stronger. Specifically, all of the front line characters charge the T. Rex and got eatern before they brought it down. The party now consisted of a couple of spellcasters and a rogue. They proceeded to enter a dinosaur hunting competition. Without any front-liners. They went from "The barbarian charges in with his axe" to setting up decoys and using summons to distract things. The end result was they won the dinosaur hunting competition by a large margin, having significantly outperformed my expectations(My expectations including a full party), without even getting hurt, and had a pet seismosaur(Those things are HUGE). The party was fully capable of using advanced tactics, once I took away the reckless barbarian.

This is something I noticed too, when I have a player that tipically always plays the power attack-cleave character I try to point him to stealth or magic users instead and when he agrees the game becomes much more fun for everyone. Oddly enough letting the more experienced and smart players play the mindless tank also works wonders, because you have a functional tank that is also good at roleplaying and can contribute to complex plans.

On the other hand, when smart and experienced players play the wizard/cleric or other "smart use oriented" classes this tends to lead to the situation I described on my previous post: they try to make complex plans that ignore very basic issues and fail, because they get caught up in the rules and forget common sense, as in "the enemies have a mind of their own and can make plans too".

[Myth]

So Hyyyyde, your golden rule in life and DMing, drawn from your vast AD&D experience until today, is "fudge the rules, fudge monster stats, give my NPCs whatever powers I want and if someone complains, give them the finger and chisel Rule 0 on their forehead"

Thanks but no thanks. Interclass balance (and the lack of it) and differently contributing players DOES exist in 3.5. Whether one's group or DM can handle it depends of course.

If you have adequate levels of system mastery (no need to go to the heights of GitP/BG scholars) you can make any concept possible and rules viable. Slapping things on and saying "it works BECAUSE' is just unregulated make believe play. You are trusting in your knowledge of what will make a fun experience but everything you make up is patchwork, on the fly and lacks coherence, consistency and it will make smarter players feel cheated. Because if you have smart players you will get caught.

Your Big Bad got owned? Instead of inventing teleporting enemies and saving him in a custcene, let the bugger die and just make a bigger badder one next time - everyone has an older brother.

My two copper pieces.