PDA

View Full Version : Countering PC builds, irregularly



SilverLeaf167
2012-02-27, 09:41 AM
We've all heard horror stories about bad DMs going out of their way to make specific PCs, or at least their major abilities, useless.

On the other hand, do you think it is acceptable to do this kind of thing sometimes, very rarely? For example, if you really wanted the party to climb a tower but one of the PCs can cast Fly, would it really be that horrible to have the tower (owned by a trap-loving Wizard) shoot magic-dispelling bolts at fliers, if doing so would make the adventure and game more enjoyable?

For a caster, casting Fly isn't such a vital part of his build, of course. But what about a Raptoran, where the choice of race (and possibly some other resources) is most likely based on having the ability to fly? In cases where it makes sense (which would occur rarely), would it be bad DMing to disable the PC's central, very defining quality?

This, of course, applies to everything else too, but Fly is a fairly common and simple example that is relevant for my campaign planning.

Aidan305
2012-02-27, 10:13 AM
I think the trick to building NPCs to counter a PCs abilities is not to do something that simply removes the ability, but something that allows the ability to be used against them, or nullifies much of the effectiveness. A PC build specialising in AoOs for example might be countered by someone who can easily evade them.

However, a build that does this should be saved and savoured. It's unfair on a PC to negate their abilities every time they want to do something and makes them feel useless. Worse, it heightens the mindset of PLayer vs. DM which is always something you want to discourage. With the right NPC however (ideally some sort of nemesis), it works wonders and will make the players enjoy the encounter (or the aftermath of the encounter) that much more.

SilverLeaf167
2012-02-27, 10:23 AM
Yes, I agree on that. When it comes to DMing, a soft counter is the best counter.

There's another way to do it: instead of using something on the PCs and complaining when they counter it easily, you can:
a. not use that something on the PCs, or at least not expect it to be a real challenge.
b. subvert it somehow. For example, instead of it being just a standard chasm that the PCs easily avoid, have a huge beast leap up from the depths and try to drag the fliers down in midflight! It's not just a blunt 'no', still allows them to evade it somehow, creates and interesting encounter and makes the party think twice before flying over pit traps.

But the question still remains: would it be that terrible or incredibly railroady if you used a logical explanation to stop the party from bypassing an entire dungeon (for example) in an uncreative and boring way?

W3bDragon
2012-02-27, 10:37 AM
In cases where it makes sense (which would occur rarely), would it be bad DMing to disable the PC's central, very defining quality?

It depends on what rarely means to you. Some DMs view "rarely" as only during boss fights, which to the PC would seem like "always shut down when it matters." But if rarely to you means "once or twice in a long campaign" then by all means the answer is yes. If you can find interesting and believable ways to make the PCs not bypass your entire dungeon, then go right ahead.

There is another take on it however. You can make the ability required instead of useless. In the tower example above, if only one PC can fly, and he's thinking of bypassing the whole tower encounter by flying to the top and grabbing the Mcguffin, he instead finds the whole place up top sealed tight with no way in. However, he does find after some searching, a lever/magical rune/whatever the opens the front door of the tower. He opens it and flies back down to the rest of the party and they all enter the tower.

In this case, you still avoided his flying ability to bypass the whole dungeon, but you rewarded him for having the ability to fly nonetheless.

valadil
2012-02-27, 10:39 AM
If a player finds a way to use his character's defining characteristic, you should absolutely let that player feel good about his character. Even if it's a single spell and not a defining characteristic, you should still let the player get some mileage out of the ability he purchased. I'd only start slowing down these abilities when the player uses them repeatedly to solve everything.

Instead of coming up with means of countering your PCs, I say spend your time coming up with more problems for the players to solve. Sure, you lost an hour of tower climbing time, but you still have another 5 hours of other barriers for the players to handle. Let them feel smug and satisfied about bypassing one of your encounters. It's okay so long as you have a few more up your sleeve.

I've also found that it really is okay to let the players win even if it compromises the session you had planned. In my last game there were quite a few times where I told the players, "look, you beat what I had planned. I could come up with a contrived way to stop you from doing so, but you'd see right through it and I'd rather not punish you for being clever. I thought that would take longer and I'm out of material, so we're going to improvise for the rest of the night." They actually liked hearing that kind of thing and found it more satisfying than if I neutered their abilities and made them play out the scenario as written.

Alex Star
2012-02-27, 11:13 AM
I think one of the cardinal issues with this is being afraid to put your BBEG at risk.

I generally like to hold my NPC's to the same rules as my players. A very common tactic in storytelling is to have the PC's meet the BBEG in combat at least once before the final showdown.

Often this first meeting is dangerous for the DM because a lucky shot could cause serious problems for the campaign. So DM's become more interested in making sure the BBEG survives than what the specific experience of that encounter is.

To me this has always seemed a bit unfair the players, they really don't have a shot at taking down the BBEG which makes this kind of a throw-away encounter.

Here is how I like to approach this kind of encounter AND how it pertains to the problems you're trying to solve.

1.) The BBEG wil treat this encounter as he does every other using his standard tactics.

2.) The PC's should know that this is a very important encounter and should understand that it's the time to use all their tricks.

3.) The BBEG should have 2 or 3 reliable methods of escape but NONE of them are foolproof.

4.) The PC's should have a legitimate chance of success.

The first point of this is the BBEG should be significantly more powerful than the players, however for this encounter he should not be using optimal tactics or strategy. I usually like to give the players a tactical or strategic advantage in these types of encounters. I want the BBEG to be in a position where if he can't kill them quickly then fleeing is the more viable option.

(Reinforcements at the door... etc...)

Does it happen that the PC's manage to kill the BBEG on occasion. YES, it's rare but it does happen, and they should be rewarded if they manage to do it. It doesn't mean the end of the campaign.

But when the BBEG does escape it's with a strong knowledge of the PC's tactics, and their strategy. Which means the next time they encounter eachother and suddenly Mr. Wizards's favorite technique which he used against him last time doesn't work as planned, well... maybe he shouldn't be so predictable.

nedz
2012-02-27, 02:45 PM
I throw random blocks in for all PC abilities; but I only block something most of the time if it has become boring to the point of breaking the game. Even then I will not block it outright, I just make it unhelpful in the current situation.

Grendus
2012-02-27, 03:22 PM
If you design a challenge that can be completely overcome by a single PC ability, it's a bad challenge. It's even worse if you use rule 0 to force them along your rails. If they players come up with a clever way of circumventing or overcoming challenges, it should be encouraged. It means your players are evolving and, what's more, having fun. Everybody likes feeling like they outwitted their opponent.

In this example, you have a few options. Flying wizards without bodyguards are referred to as skeet by tower guards. Maybe there aren't any entrances higher up, or they're all barred. Maybe the wizard does successfully fly to the top, only to find that the encounter designed for the entire party is now waiting there for just him. Maybe he can get in, only to find that the "wizard who loves traps" has that entrance so heavily protected that he can't safely proceed (if only he had a rogue with him *cough cough*). There are plenty of ways to overcome what the average party is doing without fiat, presuming you're using level equivalent challenges.

Engine
2012-02-27, 03:52 PM
Zz'dtri and Tsukiko in OotS did just that, they countered their nemesis' build.
Throwing in some casual challenge that counters a specific build it's, IMHO, bad design. It truly seems that the DM is trying to weaken your character.
But if the party has a cool recurring villain that sometimes returns with a new trick designed to counter the party's strengths, well, I think it would be fair because in the end would seem like a logical consequence.

dsmiles
2012-02-27, 04:19 PM
You should read "Play Dirty" by John Wick. The nullification of a PC's abilities isn't always bad. It's an opportunity for the DM to force a player outside of their "comfort zone," and rely on their wits rather than nifty tricks. What we're doing, as DMs, is allowing the players to grow, think outside the box, and evolve as players.

Bagelson
2012-02-27, 06:08 PM
You should read "Play Dirty" by John Wick. The nullification of a PC's abilities isn't always bad. It's an opportunity for the DM to force a player outside of their "comfort zone," and rely on their wits rather than nifty tricks. What we're doing, as DMs, is allowing the players to grow, think outside the box, and evolve as players.

I dunno about John Wick, exactly. I read Hit 'Em Where It Hurts (http://gamingoutpost.com/articles/john_wick/246/hit_em_where_it_hurts/) and to me it mostly seems like bullying. Taking advantage of a min-maxer's weakness may be one thing, but the way he revels in breaking characters by ruthlessly exploiting disadvantages and even invalidating advantages makes me uncomfortable.

If I make a character with a specific skill set or focus, it's probably because I want my character to be cool doing that sort of stuff. If I pay points for it, it should be beneficial to my character and give me screen time. If the GM is uncomfortable with my focus he better tell me when I present my character concept instead of passive aggressively making every wall anti-magic to counter my phasing character.

Playing outside your "comfort zone" is all well and good, but I'm undecided on forcing people to do so. For one it feels a lot like Player vs. GM, and I'd much rather incorporate the players' idea of fun and cool into the game. There are other ways to challenge them.

On topic, I'd say it's okay to counter an advantage every now and then, but be very careful about it. In a long-running classic fantasy game I'm in we've spent the last couple of sessions in a place where magic really doesn't work very well and it's filled with hostile barbarians. My character is an extremely accomplished mage, with a fall back pool of social skills. Not surprisingly, with practically my entire character concept nullified, I'm bored. The GM is also such a stickler for rules that my bag of assorted tricks doesn't have much effect either. Now, this campaign has been running for over 7 years and this is the first time this has happened, but I'm still bored.

Now, I don't know why you want to have your group climb the tower (in my experience, such things are dreadful things with small spaces filled with enemies where plans inevitably degenerate to violence) but I assume there's something important on top. Let's say it's something they need to fetch; such as a princess.

You could shift the challenge around to deal not with ascending the tower but escaping it. They fly up and grab the princess, but doing so alerts the monsters, both flying and otherwise, and the tricky part is all about staying hidden in the forests and mountains while occasionally ambushing their pursuers.

Or there could be a challenge to flying up roughly equal to that of walking up. Say there's a mighty gryphon guarding the tower, roosting near the top. It would have air superiority, but if the players can lure it within their grasp and defeat it, they'd clear the way to the top.

The point being, rather than nullifying the character concept, make it useful if they clear a different challenge or make using it a challenge in itself.

JBento
2012-02-27, 06:58 PM
Dude, I just read that Hit 'em Where it Hurts thing, and that guy is an ASS.

The disadvantages are all fair game, but making Lucky making you unlucky, designing a disease that hits characters who paid points to be immune to diseases...

I'd never play with a GM like that :smalleek:

Ornithologist
2012-02-27, 08:00 PM
My thing with my group is always been "be careful what you wish for." I tell them that unless they want their character to die, I will do my best to keep their character alive too. But having the character wish they were dead is another matter.

Player 1: Hey I'm not to thrilled with the weapon I chose when we started. Could I possibly change it?

Me: Yes of course.

P1: Can I just do that in between sessions or would you like me to do it in game?

Me: Lets do it in game I have just the idea.

Next session: The BEG throws a large ball of lava at the party. Player one "happens" to be in front of the group (hes a warrior, so it was expected), and blocks the brunt of the attack with his weapon. Which unfortunately, melts and covers him in hot molten metal. He survives, but become very very scarred and intimidating. But he was already working on the intimidate skill, so it works out for him.

Ormur
2012-02-27, 08:24 PM
Usually PC's don't have just a single trick. If they have a signature move or one trick that's more powerful than the others I think it's okay to nullify that occasionally, especially if they are up against an enemy that knows about it. The crafty evil cleric may have cast spell immunity "wings of flurry" forcing the Sorcerer to use his other spells or something may be immune to fear meaning that the Crusader can't just cower him immediately but actually has to smack it. In NPC's immunities like that are also often based on magic that can be dispelled.

But if you're countering whole builds than that's in my opinion probably a bit of double problem, that of a unsuccessful PC and DM preparation. It's bad being a character completely dependent on doing sneak attack damage faced by a horde of undead with means of circumventing their immunity. When the holes in your build are that big encounters where you are useless are often not even deliberate on the DM's part, but then he should at least try to give you something to do, have one necromancer of flesh and blood lurking in the back or something.

Unless of course the DM is just ticking a box of all the abilities of a well rounded PC character and nullifying them, that's just spiteful. I think ideally everyone should be able to contribute in an encounter, even if not always at their full capacity.

LibraryOgre
2012-02-27, 11:49 PM
Here's my take on it...

Unless your characters are coming up with something truly innovative, chances are pretty good that it's been done before, and chances aren't bad that it's something that's been prepared for.

If they have the means, people are going to prepare for the standard tricks. Flight, teleportation, earthquake spells... what they can prepare for, they will (if they're the sort that prepares. If they're not, they probably died at low levels).

Complaining about a NPCs being prepared for standard uses of standard spells and items is analogous to fighters complaining because other people are wearing armor. Of course they're wearing armor... you're trying to stick sharp things in them. Armor is a logical response to that; if you're a wizard, a logical response to that is an Ironbane spell. And if you've got a nefarious plot going on inside your tower, you're going to make sure the people actively trying to disrupt that nefarious plot can't get in the tower by whatever means you can afford, both financially and morally.

Now, the important part is bolded above... if they have the means. If I'm anticipating people trying to stick sharp things into me, I'm going to buy the best armor I can. If I can't afford plate, leather will have to do.... because it's better than nothing. If I can't afford a permanent Anti-Magic Shell, I don't think sealing up the windows and relying on magical lighting is an unreasonable response people flying around and trying to get inside. One of the places where Tucker's Kobolds fell down for me is the amount of material the kobolds had... well in excess of the loot you'd expect from a bunch of kobolds. That they'd honeycombed the place with passages big enough for them or an anorexic halfling? No problem. That they had gallons of oil, and scores of ready glass bottles? More of a problem, because it's beyond the means of a pack of kobolds.

Where else does this go? If I'm going against a wizard, I steal his spellbook. Why? Because without that, he's less dangerous to me. It's harder to steal a fighter's armor, but that's why there's Heat Metal spells and alchemical itching powder*. If the bard has a weakness for ladies, I send him a lady who will seduce him and poison him. Why? Because I want to win, too. And, to quote a wise man,


So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a hundred battles without a single loss.
If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.

If the antagonists aren't taking advantage of the PCs weaknesses, no matter how "mean" or "disruptive of build" it is, while it is in their resources and moral range to do so, then they are softballing people who want to kill them. This is called "Suicide by Superhero", assuming the PCs have an 8th level fighter in the group. And if a party isn't doing their damnedest to protect their weaknesses (investing money in the fighter's gear, the wizard's spellbook, and the bard's safety), then they deserve to have their tuchuses trounced. Relying on "It's not sporting to go after the wizard's spellbook" is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

My entire day has been quoting Sun Tzu at people. Had to explain to a kid today that I kept kicking his butt at video games, even though I chose random characters every time, because I figured out what my character did well, what his character did well, and how to exploit his weaknesses while minimizing mine.

*And dammit, if there isn't there should be. That would be FIENDISH against someone in full plate.

bloodtide
2012-02-28, 01:15 AM
In general I 'counter' PCs all the time. I see this as one of the big jobs of a DM. After all the other option is to sit back and let a player just win and encounter(or a whole game). And not is that only no fun for the DM, but that is also no fun for the player. While some players do just want to fly, charge, teleport or whatever and get around an adventure...that vast majority do not. The vast majority of players do want to be countered. The game becomes no fun very quick if the player just 'wins' everything.


In the first place though, my game is high powered, high fantasy and high magic, so that the world is already full of counters in the first place. So that the entire world has for example anti-flying defenses. I don't like the low power, low fantasy, low magic LotR type world at all.

In general, I simply make the world 'one step' higher or countered then normal. So, things like animated crossbows are quite common on roof tops, as are traps in general, and guards. The idea is that you can't 'just fly' on to a roof top. So it's not impossible, it's not like every roof has a anti-fly field or anything, but for the most part you can't 'just' do it easily.

Grendus
2012-02-28, 01:38 AM
Dude, I just read that Hit 'em Where it Hurts thing, and that guy is an ASS.

The disadvantages are all fair game, but making Lucky making you unlucky, designing a disease that hits characters who paid points to be immune to diseases...

I'd never play with a GM like that :smalleek:

Yea, that's pretty vile. A great example of what not to do, I think. Playing to disadvantages is fine, but using DM fiat to turn their advantages against them is pretty pathetic. The DM will win every time if he wants to, rubbing it in is both pointless and juvenile.

Toofey
2012-02-28, 03:37 AM
I think depriving the players of abilities for single adventures is not entirely problematic, but it should be done sparingly, and should never be permanent.

Sometimes it's nice to do something different just for the sake of doing something different, temporarily limiting what the players can do for one reason or another

I've done it twice once the rules to planar Colosseum type games disallowing any magic that effected movement, and the other being an area affect around a lock built around an "Eldrich Evil" preventing any form of "translocation" (teleportation phasing etc...) I've also done it in "soft" ways with the heroes occasionally operating in areas where the enemies have secured what we would now call "air control" with the heroes being attacked by modified Air elementals if they were spotted in the sky.

I also sometimes have people (or monsters) attack the parties I DM when they are spotted flying overhead as I just think that's realistic. Want to fly hundreds of miles unhindered, spring for some invisibility.

Xiander
2012-02-28, 04:02 AM
Setting up a situation where a single ability is not as effective as it might seem at first glance is not something to shy away from, as long as it makes sense why the ability does not work.
If you do not want players to just fly past your challenge, set up a different, perhaps harder, challenge for fliers to deal with. Alternatively come up with a good reason flying to the top of the tower will not work.
For example: having the tower defended by a spell that prevents flight is fine if the wizard in the tower would have access to that. An alternative would be having flying monsters nesting on the outside of the tower, attacking anyone who approaches through the air.
What is not okay is this scenario:

DM: You see before you the tower of the dark wizard, you know the sacred globe of Yamatzee lies somewhere whithin, and judging by the magical energies gathering around the top of the tower, you judge it to be on the uppermost floor.
Player: I cast plight and fly to the top floor.
GM :smalleek:.. You can't!
Player: Why not? :smallconfused:
GM: Flight doesn't work around the tower.
Player: Why not?
GM: It just doesn't.

Seharvepernfan
2012-02-28, 04:37 AM
Replying to OP:

Doing it irregularly is pretty much standard, as I see it.

PC's should know that they abilities aren't always going to be useful by virtue of race or class, that's kinda why there are different races and classes.

If the raptoran goes into a dungeon with tight quarter and low ceilings, he should expect not to fly. Hell, if he's indoors or underground at all he should expect not to fly and be pleasantly surprised when he can.

My advice is to do the best you can to design your adventures WITHOUT the pcs in mind, and let them tackle the adventure using what they have. This means, among other things, not using the same things too often. The book gives an example of not repeatedly throwing fire resistant enemies at the party if the wizard just learned fireball. However, if the party is in a dungeon (or is knowingly about to go to one) where there are a lot of fire resistant enemies and he levels up and chooses fireball, then don't sweat it. Actually, in that specific situation, definitely DO NOT avoid using fire resistant enemies, it will kill the verisimilitude.

Your example with the tower owning wizard who has dispelling bolts designed to shoot down fliers is perfectly fine. If I, as a player, were able to fly to the top of the wizards tower and he didn't have any specific traps/defenses to prevent such a thing, I would lose faith in my DM, assuming there was nothing more to it, like the wizard not trapping the top of his tower because he WANTS intruders to come in through the top.

Also, if the party gets known to a certain group of enemies (whether specifically or by reputation), don't be afraid to design those enemies with tactics and gear specifically suited to defeating the party, just keep it all within the capabilities of the enemies (no genius plans for a group with no geniuses, no +5 doom bolts of death on 7th level guys, etc.).

This will help build verismilitude with your players. They'll start believing that the world just 'is', and isn't reacting to them specifically.

Mono Vertigo
2012-02-28, 07:42 AM
Yea, that's pretty vile. A great example of what not to do, I think. Playing to disadvantages is fine, but using DM fiat to turn their advantages against them is pretty pathetic. The DM will win every time if he wants to, rubbing it in is both pointless and juvenile.
Yeah. How could he find people who still wanted to play with him afterwards? :smalleek:
This guy should think about DMing Paranoia games instead. THIS is a game all about, well, paranoia and spectacular failures.

DigoDragon
2012-02-28, 07:54 AM
Sometimes an "Indirect-Counter" works. Instead of countering their ability in question directly, counter a secondary ability that usually gets employed in combo with the first.

To use the flying PC as an example, in my current campaign one party member is a Warlock with Fell Flight. He never touches the ground if he doesn't have to. However, he is terrible with being able to overcome spell resistance. If I throw a 6-pak of Drow at the party, he can fly over them, but his Eldritch Blast misses 50% of the time, forcing him to use a conventional weapon.

I don't always throw Drow at the party, but when I do...

Mastikator
2012-02-28, 08:19 AM
To be honest, don't try to subvert their efforts to solve problems, instead just up the game in the future.
You should never make an ability useless because "it would otherwise have been useful". That's a terrible reason to shoot the players down, if they can blaze through your encounters then you're designing the encounters wrong. Don't punish them for being successful.

blackseven
2012-02-28, 08:19 AM
Yeah. How could he find people who still wanted to play with him afterwards? :smalleek:
This guy should think about DMing Paranoia games instead. THIS is a game all about, well, paranoia and spectacular failures.

They play with him because they are personal friends and probably know him long enough to be okay with his style... or because he's John Wick, kind of a big name in gaming (at least he was at one point.)

That doesn't make his ideas "right for everyone," of course. While L5R was a great game under his direction, some of his ideas (and blatant favoritism in story writing) were not healthy.

phantomreader42
2012-02-28, 09:20 PM
We've all heard horror stories about bad DMs going out of their way to make specific PCs, or at least their major abilities, useless.

On the other hand, do you think it is acceptable to do this kind of thing sometimes, very rarely? For example, if you really wanted the party to climb a tower but one of the PCs can cast Fly, would it really be that horrible to have the tower (owned by a trap-loving Wizard) shoot magic-dispelling bolts at fliers, if doing so would make the adventure and game more enjoyable?

I could see a trap-loving wizard preparing like that, but it's not something you can use often

Some other suggestions to prevent flying to the top of the tower:

Flying is allowed, but the tower is manned by archers who will shoot you down.
There are flying monsters or air elementals guarding the outside of the tower to prevent flying intruders.
You can fly to the top, but there are no openings you can get into there.
You can fly to the top with no trouble, but there are monsters waiting for you.
You have no problem getting to the top of the tower, but there's nothing there. What you were looking for is actually in the basement, behind multiple traps and secret doors. The owner of the tower is genre savvy enough to know that people always assume the treasure is at the top, and is deliberately screwing with them.




For a caster, casting Fly isn't such a vital part of his build, of course. But what about a Raptoran, where the choice of race (and possibly some other resources) is most likely based on having the ability to fly? In cases where it makes sense (which would occur rarely), would it be bad DMing to disable the PC's central, very defining quality?

This, of course, applies to everything else too, but Fly is a fairly common and simple example that is relevant for my campaign planning.

I had a player with a Raptoran fighter who used various magic items to make himself nigh-unreachable with ranged weapons. We couldn't keep that game together long enough for me to figure out a good counter, though I did once pit him against another raptoran, and a druid casting Master Air. Then I sent the whole party to the Plane of Air where EVERYTHING flies, and was about to give them a dragon as a recurring rival. If we play that again I'll use an idea from one of the Loot 4 Less (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=69000) supplements at DriveThruRPG.com, a cheap reusable ring that duplicates the effect of a tanglefoot bag. And it's a useful counter for spellcasters too.

Traab
2012-02-28, 10:00 PM
I think the main problem is when you are trying to deal with a player whose character can only do one thing. They minmaxed the hell out of whatever their awesome winning move is, and cant do anything else very well. When you put in a specifically designed encounter that negates this ability, you might as well say rocks fall, and leave it at that. However, thats a failing on the part of both the player and the dm. The player really shouldnt ever focus so heavily on a single tactic or ability that nothing else is useful, and its pretty damn mean to take a character that does insist on that, and negating the skill entirely.

With a well balanced party that has classes capable of doing a variety of actions, negating one or two of them from time to time is a good tactic because it forces them to come up with new strategies without crippling them. Instead of 50 versions of "You see a wall." "I cast fly on my party members" You actually see several different methods for getting over the wall when every now and then, one is setup to stop flight attempts, another is greased so its functionally unclimbable, etc etc etc.

Knaight
2012-02-28, 10:38 PM
I'm going to note that this doesn't just apply to D&D, but rather to any game in which there are characters with mechanically quantified abilities that have counters. Speaking broadly, I have absolutely no issue countering these - however, there has to be a reason. If, for instance, there just happen to be a bunch of bandits met on the road, odds are they won't have a counter. If someone is sending assassins after the PCs, these assassins are going to counter them. Someone needs a swordsman with some master technique dead? Send an horse archer who can stay out of range and pelt them with arrows. Need to kill an archer with near perfect aim? Find someone who can casually knock arrows out of the air after them. So on and so forth. Moreover, occasionally, there are going to be people who happen to work well regardless. Take a wuxia setting - there are a bunch of styles of martial art, and eventually you are going to run into the guy who learned from the guy who developed a style to kill the guy who killed the guy who taught you. That sort of stuff just happens in that genre - however, odds are also good that you'll be that guy for someone else.

Roderick_BR
2012-03-01, 09:26 AM
Wall of text alert:

I'd say this case is a bit complex, because it varies too much, depending on the situation.
Anything that counters a PC's ability will always look like it's out to get them, so you need to make it look like it's something that should actually be obvious.

In the tower example: A wizard with it's own tower, should be both experient, and a bit paranoid, so he knows there's a lot of easy ways to enter his tower, so he should protect himself against the more obvious ones, so he should have some dimensional anchors in place to avoid people just scrying and teleporting in (with a quick dismissal system, for quick escape), maybe some wind-related spells to disrupt flyers (in this case from impossible, it would be "just" very hard, be it by magic or natural wings).

In other cases, it shoul be something just hard.
In the chasm example, it could have winds so strong it makes nearly impossible to just fly over it. Or, using the monster example, have some wicked flying monsters, making it safer to go low, like looking for the bridge (that offers protection) or go the deep detour.
Time constraints could be used too. The flyer can fly himself and another PC, but the rest needs to cross too, and they can't wait the flyer to go back and forth.

Finally, you could add situations that actually reward a specific build.
Using the chasm example: the PCs need to cross it quickly. A flyer can go, take an ally, while the wizard and cleric use up resources to make the rest fly. Then they go, gaining precious time.
This makes the players fell good for accomplishing a task, and doing it well thanks for their build. The next obstacle may be difficult because they don't have an specific build, but when they do, it should be allowed.

Remember it depends a lot on situations, npcs, and builds.
A classic example are the paladin's immunity to disease. 95% of the times, it's useless, since no one evere gets sick. The day it actually can be used... the DM says it doesn't work against this one specific disease. So, the only time a ability can be used, the DM cuts it out to protect his plot.
A better ways to deal with it is: The disease is a possible danger, however, the paladin (and maybe the monk, I think) may claim to be immune, gaining a bit more freedom to act, getting an advance to the group.
If the DM still want some danger added, whatever created it may have foreseen paladins geting involved and tried to make it more powerful, being partially succesful, making paladins getting only half the effects, still making it dangerous, but letting the paladin enjoy a little his one class feature that rarely sees use.

You could compare this situation to a rogue that never sees a trap or locked door, since his companion just kicks doors open and wades into traps relying on high HP. When he does find a locked door that needs to be opened in silence... the DM says he can't pick this lock for X reason, and the group needs to seek the key.

QuidEst
2012-03-01, 10:53 AM
Alternatively- let them fly to the top. The MacGuffin is in the dungeon. Put something else nice up at the top so they can feel good about dodging some fairly minor resistance on the way up, but put the place on high alert (entrances and exits shut) once they take it.

Rorrik
2012-03-01, 02:15 PM
As has been said, the fact of the matter is that the bad guys are doing whatever they can think of an afford to stop the players. I tend to try to show that to the best of my ability by thinking about what they can and would do to defend themselves, and then try to help the PCs know what kind of person he is and what kind of things to expect. Maybe as they approach the tower a lightning bolt fries a bird flying nearby, or if I'm feeling particularly subtle, as they approach they see several bird skeletons and charred bodies around the tower. If they manage to cobble together a fly, lightning resist tactic in response, good on them, but the tower will be alerted immediately to the repeatedly firing lightning bolts.

Sometimes it feels like the enemy was too dumb or weak to be a real challenge, other times he ends up too strong or clever, but either way, it feels real and I try to find a more appropriate enemy for the next one.

BigBadHarve
2012-03-01, 11:32 PM
I generally don't plan counters to the players as a matter of course, unless there's a specific enemy actively plotting against the PCs. Dungeons and random encounters are played as written, no matter how easily they might defeat it, or how outmatched they are.

It often works out in the end... often players can outsmart themselves, which is a lot of fun to watch. A simple solution practically slapping them in the face, while they overcomplicate things. Alternatively, quick thinking will get them out of a situation where they're in over their heads. That's the essence of these games.

In a game with so much variety, and even more unknown variables, I find that just letting the chips fall where they may regardless of how easily the group can handle a situation is the most satisfying. That shouldn't suggest that you can't challenge them, but you don't need to specifically engineer scenarios to render them powerless.

My two copper pieces.

-BBH

PhallicWarrior
2012-03-02, 09:09 PM
I would say yes, that kind of thing is perfectly acceptable.

In specific situations.

I have a player who is a relentless powergamer. Even with the strictest limitations on what he can draw from to build his characters, he still manages to create really nasty builds. So, to keep him from derailing the campaign, I have to throw stuff at him that he can't simply annihilate, whether that's a Warrior with an Anti-Magic belt or a wizard with some Contingencies prepared.

(Or in my current M&M campaign, an EMP device. He's a robot.)

Silverlich
2012-03-03, 06:40 PM
Here's my take on it...

Unless your characters are coming up with something truly innovative, chances are pretty good that it's been done before, and chances aren't bad that it's something that's been prepared for.

If they have the means, people are going to prepare for the standard tricks. Flight, teleportation, earthquake spells... what they can prepare for, they will (if they're the sort that prepares. If they're not, they probably died at low levels).

Complaining about a NPCs being prepared for standard uses of standard spells and items is analogous to fighters complaining because other people are wearing armor. Of course they're wearing armor... you're trying to stick sharp things in them. Armor is a logical response to that; if you're a wizard, a logical response to that is an Ironbane spell. And if you've got a nefarious plot going on inside your tower, you're going to make sure the people actively trying to disrupt that nefarious plot can't get in the tower by whatever means you can afford, both financially and morally.

Now, the important part is bolded above... if they have the means. If I'm anticipating people trying to stick sharp things into me, I'm going to buy the best armor I can. If I can't afford plate, leather will have to do.... because it's better than nothing. If I can't afford a permanent Anti-Magic Shell, I don't think sealing up the windows and relying on magical lighting is an unreasonable response people flying around and trying to get inside. One of the places where Tucker's Kobolds fell down for me is the amount of material the kobolds had... well in excess of the loot you'd expect from a bunch of kobolds. That they'd honeycombed the place with passages big enough for them or an anorexic halfling? No problem. That they had gallons of oil, and scores of ready glass bottles? More of a problem, because it's beyond the means of a pack of kobolds.

Where else does this go? If I'm going against a wizard, I steal his spellbook. Why? Because without that, he's less dangerous to me. It's harder to steal a fighter's armor, but that's why there's Heat Metal spells and alchemical itching powder*. If the bard has a weakness for ladies, I send him a lady who will seduce him and poison him. Why? Because I want to win, too. And, to quote a wise man,



If the antagonists aren't taking advantage of the PCs weaknesses, no matter how "mean" or "disruptive of build" it is, while it is in their resources and moral range to do so, then they are softballing people who want to kill them. This is called "Suicide by Superhero", assuming the PCs have an 8th level fighter in the group. And if a party isn't doing their damnedest to protect their weaknesses (investing money in the fighter's gear, the wizard's spellbook, and the bard's safety), then they deserve to have their tuchuses trounced. Relying on "It's not sporting to go after the wizard's spellbook" is bringing a knife to a gunfight.

My entire day has been quoting Sun Tzu at people. Had to explain to a kid today that I kept kicking his butt at video games, even though I chose random characters every time, because I figured out what my character did well, what his character did well, and how to exploit his weaknesses while minimizing mine.

*And dammit, if there isn't there should be. That would be FIENDISH against someone in full plate.

I feel like this only applies to intelligent villains. Plotting Archmage/Baron/Lich? Sure. Random Giant Monster who decided that the PC's home village was a cool place to stage a reenactment of Godzilla? Not so much.

jhorred
2012-03-04, 01:09 PM
Dude, I just read that Hit 'em Where it Hurts thing, and that guy is an ASS.

The disadvantages are all fair game, but making Lucky making you unlucky, designing a disease that hits characters who paid points to be immune to diseases...

I'd never play with a GM like that :smalleek:

A few friends and I played with a GM like this for a relatively short while. First thing he did to try to limit the party's power was a "3 core books" only limitation for character creation, and then he quickly nixed things that were pretty effective. Then he would create these crazy/off the wall monsters/encounters to try to put the PCs in their place. Flying 'dirty' earth elementals with high AC and SR that did damage every round if you were moderately close to them. I swear that his intent was to make it so that didn't win battles so much as the bad guys lost to them. He even went so far as having the bad guys raid the PCs and steal their magic items with no chance to stop them and little change of retrieving them. Needlessly to say we didn't really play with him long.

LibraryOgre
2012-03-04, 05:14 PM
I feel like this only applies to intelligent villains. Plotting Archmage/Baron/Lich? Sure. Random Giant Monster who decided that the PC's home village was a cool place to stage a reenactment of Godzilla? Not so much.

True, but a great number of things only apply to intelligent villains. If the problem is people countering your build, you have to ask "Is this something that a reasonable person would have prepared for in a world where people can do X?"

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-04, 05:25 PM
For example, instead of it being just a standard chasm that the PCs easily avoid, have a huge beast leap up from the depths and try to drag the fliers down in midflight!I knew Magma Kraken was a great spell! I love Exalted! :smallbiggrin:

Endarire
2012-03-05, 12:31 AM
When I ran a 3.5 campaign lasting L1-21, I gave the group free reign for fly, teleport, and plane shift at the level each became available. After that, things got more restrictive as enemies adapted.

Autolykos
2012-03-05, 05:31 AM
I generally don't plan counters to the players as a matter of course, unless there's a specific enemy actively plotting against the PCs.Yep, that's exactly the point. IMHO you'll understand dungeon design a lot better once you've played (or, better yet, GMed) Shadowrun. A dungeon is basically a form of security system, and whoever builds it wants it to protect against a large variety of threats as good as necessary for as cheap as possible. Ideally, any attacker should be forced to spend more resources than the dungeon's contents are worth - but then budget considerations, lack of creativity, or sometimes even desire for aesthetics come into play.
In a world with magical flight readily available, building an underground dungeon makes a lot more sense than castles and towers from a tactical standpoint - but who wants to spend his life in a hole underground? So anyone who wants to have both windows and security will use some form of protection against flight if he can afford it and thinks his home/workshop/vault/whatever might be an attractive target for mid-level wizards or flying critters.
Unless the dungeon was built by a BBEG who perceived the players as one of his biggest threats and knew their weaknesses (which should only happen in very high-level games), you should *never* tailor the defenses specifically to your player's weaknesses. And if the dungeon was built before the BBEG was aware of the players, the design will probably only be tuned and retrofitted against the players, with the basic construction being more general-purpose.
Tailoring the defenses to adventurer groups (or, as the builder would probably call them, burglars, spies and grave robbers) is fine if they are pretty high on your list of potential threats, but unfair otherwise.