PDA

View Full Version : Should poor optimization give immunities to "bad things"?



Jon_Dahl
2012-03-21, 01:52 AM
Right now in my current campaign the party is without a cleric... Actually they have very little abjuration-magic since their wizard is always on the offensive.

Since the campaign happens in a desert, away from magic shops and friendly clerics, PCs are pretty much on their own. However some of the desert monsters such as mummies and lamias have offensive powers that desperately need some curative or protective spells, such as Restoration and Remove Curse.

As a DM I feel extremely frustrated, because I have to severely restrict the selection of monsters in order to keep the PCs alive.

What is your view? Should the campaign world be protective towards PCs that are able to handle only very limited encounters or should a DM use wide selection of monsters but limiting the ones that are especially deadly?

How would you feel as a player if your group had four 7th-level characters and your character contracted a mummy rot and within 300 miles there were only low-level Bedouin NPCs? Would you feel that the DM is against you or the poor optimization that you have done as a group?

Porthos
2012-03-21, 02:12 AM
Optimization is neither required nor not required to have a good roleplaying experience. At least that's what I keep hearing. :smallwink:

But to answer your question, of course you tailor the world for the characters. To a degree, at least. After all, would you drop an ancient red dragon on a bunch of first level characters?

Of course not. Well, unless it was part of a polt hook, that is. :smalltongue:

So if you're not gonna send an encounter against PCs that can't handle it in cases like that, why do so in cases like this? It's really the same thing just at a different degree. When it comes right down to it, the "level appropiate enounters" are meant to be guides to figure out what would be challenging to a party. Or very challenging. Or deadly. Or... Well you get the idea.

So just sit down and look around and figure out what would be challenging. What would make them have to fight tooth and nail. What could be very deadly and lead to the next 4d6 group of party if things went horribly wrong.

Just don't be unfair about it. Unless they're expecting that, that is. :smallwink:

Killer Angel
2012-03-21, 03:10 AM
Random encounter and minor bosses should be modeled following the combat effectiveness of the group. For more difficult encounters, climax battles and so on, the burden is more on the characters, that should plan and prepare for the fight in a proper way for the specific task, buying potions, scrolls.

With a low opt. group, the enemies should be low optimized too... but its not an excuse for the group to act foolishly and go after things that are dangerous. You won't charge into the dragon's lair, following a meta-reasoning "we're weak, the dragon will be weak too".

Jlerpy
2012-03-21, 03:33 AM
Absolutely you should consider the party when designing your encounters. Just like you shouldn't toss an all-Wizard party into an Anti-magic field unless you want to make that a big point, you shouldn't toss a Cleric-less party against stuff that's going to make them weep.

Going Cleric-less is great if you want every wound to really mean something, but that should be a story feature, not just a punishment for nobody "taking one for the team and playing the Cleric".

Mastikator
2012-03-21, 04:39 AM
You could make some of the more fatal encounters more optional as fight, make sure they know they always have the option of evading the monsters instead of charging ahead.

TroubleBrewing
2012-03-21, 05:11 AM
Finding potions of Remove Curse or Cure Disease among a mummy's horde isn't out of the question, either.

Jlerpy
2012-03-21, 05:19 AM
Very true. A mummy's got to be responsible about his social (un)life, after all. ;)

some guy
2012-03-21, 05:46 AM
I think that if you give the players enough warnings beforehand* and give them opportunities to circumvent encounters, you're in the green to throw nasty things at them.
However, like others have said, they might have found potions or other magical items. But, of course, these potions might be difficult to find.

Question: were the pc's level 7 before they went in the desert? Could they prepare with buying potions, getting information about the area? If they could and didn't, they're just unprepared adventurers and unprepared adventurers are dead adventurers. If they couldn't, don't use those encounters or give them opportunities to solve the problems surrounding those encounters.


*Something like "You've heard stories about a gang of dangerous creatures roaming in the area to the east. Survivors seemed to be more simple minded after these horrific encounters. Are you sure you don't want to take the northern path?"
Or "You've heard bards tell that raiders of these tombs contracted a terrible disease that turned them into dust in just a few days. Are you sure you want to enter the tombs?"

u-b
2012-03-21, 05:48 AM
Hmm... I do not see a reason to be particularly worried about mummies - they have speed of 20, so if your players are tactically inept, you could just as well consider it their problem or have some bedouin advise them about fighting naked, using their bows and employing smarts. Lamia is more difficult to judge, but I'd say do not use it unless you want to really hurt those guys. It could be deadly even against cleric-equipped group, if it lacks specific counters.


You could make some of the more fatal encounters more optional as fight, make sure they know they always have the option of evading the monsters instead of charging ahead.
And this, especially if your party is smart enough to get mounted.

Jay R
2012-03-21, 06:21 AM
Hmm... I do not see a reason to be particularly worried about mummies - they have speed of 20, so if your players are tactically inept, you could just as well consider it their problem or have some bedouin advise them about fighting naked, using their bows and employing smarts.

If the locals know how to kill the mummies safely, why aren't the mummies dead?

QuidEst
2012-03-21, 06:24 AM
Well… if you want full monsters selection, you have options like a temporary GMNPC healbot, encouraging use of Leadership if you've got a high CHA character in the group, or a humorously entrepreneurial merchant. (I've seen a game that even had an undead merchant in the middle of the ruins. He had been cursed in life for his greed, so he charged a hefty markup over in-town prices.)

You can also find or edit similar monsters. It's Pathfinder, but there's an Osirion Mummy template that doesn't have Mummy Rot. (It makes it darn hard to raise something it kills, mind you…)

The Glyphstone
2012-03-21, 06:25 AM
If the locals know how to kill the mummies safely, why aren't the mummies dead?

-The mummies aren't a problem to the locals, so they don't care...but these stupid foreigners insist on tomb-robbing, so they might as well share what they know.
-They know the theory, but lack the expertise/tools/practice to pull it off with success, and none of them want to risk failure.
-Their knowledge and tricks have been passed down over generations, from a time when they did hunt and kill mummies but don't anymore for one of the reasons above.
-They're massive trolls and give the PCs bad advice.:smallsmile:

Mixt
2012-03-21, 07:37 AM
Adapt the world for the PC's convenience? Blasphemy! :smalltongue:


Level 3 group is headed towards a swamp.

They are warned by a traveling merchant that the swamp is infested with hydras.

The group reasons that the DM wouldn't throw something so far out of their encounter range at them, so they enter the swamp anyway in the belief that no hydras will show up.

They are attacked by hydras, everybody dies.

Really, what were they expecting?

No changing the layout of the world for their convenience there, if they walk into a nest of monsters whose CR is beyond their ability to handle, then that's on their heads.

Lesson: Do some research and/or recon before waltzing into random caves or swamps, if the inhabitants are beyond what you can handle, DO NOT ENTER! And take those warnings seriously instead of assuming the DM will level scale everything for you.


Then there's the "Trying to invade Hell at level 9" incident.

"We are level 9, so we shouldn't encounter anything higher than CR 10 or so, even though we are invading the Nine He...OH MAH GAWD PIT FIEND!"


Hey, it's realistic, if in real life you were to walk into a bear cave, the bear wouldn't go away or randomly be replaced with some other animal just because you don't have a big enough gun to handle a bear.

The Glyphstone
2012-03-21, 07:44 AM
Adapt the world for the PC's convenience? Blasphemy! :smalltongue:


Level 3 group is headed towards a swamp.

They are warned by a traveling merchant that the swamp is infested with hydras.

The group reasons that the DM wouldn't throw something so far out of their encounter range at them, so they enter the swamp anyway in the belief that no hydras will show up.

They are attacked by hydras, everybody dies.

Really, what were they expecting?

No changing the layout of the world for their convenience there, if they walk into a nest of monsters whose CR is beyond their ability to handle, then that's on their heads.

Lesson: Do some research and/or recon before waltzing into random caves or swamps, if the inhabitants are beyond what you can handle, DO NOT ENTER! And take those warnings seriously instead of assuming the DM will level scale everything for you.


Then there's the "Trying to invade Hell at level 9" incident.

"We are level 9, so we shouldn't encounter anything higher than CR 10 or so, even though we are invading the Nine He...OH MAH GAWD PIT FIEND!"


Hey, it's realistic, if in real life you were to walk into a bear cave, the bear wouldn't go away or randomly be replaced with some other animal just because you don't have a big enough gun to handle a bear.

That's kind of bordering on strawman territory there, because no one has so far advocated CR-matching like an Elder Scrolls game. The topic at hand is abilities and powers, not CR - is it fair to throw an enemy your party could never beat even at its appropriate CR because of their group makeup. When you have a TWF rogue, a Warblade, a healbotty Cleric, and a Paladin, should the DM have all their encounters be flying monsters? How often should they fight Crystalline Trolls with their unbreakable (for that party) Regen/Sonic, or other enemies whose only possible response is "hope to outrun the halfling"? That's the question at hand, no "lol all monsters scale to PC level".

u-b
2012-03-21, 07:46 AM
...

That is a nice way to handle things, with only one caveat: this way most of my characters would not go anywhere near half of pre-scribed locations found in production modules.

Jay R
2012-03-21, 01:33 PM
As a DM I feel extremely frustrated, because I have to severely restrict the selection of monsters in order to keep the PCs alive.

Just think of it as running a game two levels lower. Give unoptimized 7th-level PCs the encounters you would give 5th levels. This way, you're not restricted; you're just behind. When they are ninth level, you can give them the 7th level encounter.


Should the campaign world be protective towards PCs that are able to handle only very limited encounters or should a DM use wide selection of monsters but limiting the ones that are especially deadly?

The biggest problem with limiting the encounters is that it's a hole that has no bottom. In our first D&D group (OD&D in the 1970s), one player was so bad that nobody would continue to game with him. He eventually rolled up a whole party and went off to play it. The DM had intended to keep his PCs alive, so he did everything he could to protect them, short of changing the world he had designed for the rest of us. The PCs were told not to go north; nobody comes back. They went north. They came to a sign that said, "Danger! Cockatrice Valley!" They entered the valley. They wandered through many statues of adventurers looking upward. They kept going. They heard heavy flapping above them. They stood there and looked up.

What can the DM do?

Poor optimization, in design or in play, usually comes from not reading and thinking about the rules, or from not thinking clearly. The problem of unoptimized characters is usually a symptom of the problem of unoptimized players.

Having said that, yes, try to design an encounter they can enjoy. Ideally, this is to let you use the monsters you normally can't use because they are too weak.


How would you feel as a player if your group had four 7th-level characters and your character contracted a mummy rot and within 300 miles there were only low-level Bedouin NPCs? Would you feel that the DM is against you or the poor optimization that you have done as a group?

Again, poor optimization usually comes from not reading and thinking about the rules, or from not thinking clearly. Most players in this category blame the DM for everything. Live with it. (And consider providing a hermit with Remove Curse and Cure Disease.)

Sergeantbrother
2012-03-21, 06:06 PM
The point if D&D is to have fun, not to "realistically" model the extremely unrealistic and contrived idea of fantasy world dungeon crawls. Why should somebody have to play a cleric if they don't want to? The job of the DM is to give the PC's encounters that will challenge them, but that they will survive - because a big challenge that is overcome is the most fun. If the entire party dies, it's not the party that failed, but the GM.

Voyager_I
2012-03-21, 06:36 PM
The point if D&D is to have fun, not to "realistically" model the extremely unrealistic and contrived idea of fantasy world dungeon crawls. Why should somebody have to play a cleric if they don't want to? The job of the DM is to give the PC's encounters that will challenge them, but that they will survive - because a big challenge that is overcome is the most fun. If the entire party dies, it's not the party that failed, but the GM.

Some people like the idea that their actions have consequences. Certainly, if I behave in a manner that is appropriate for the information the DM has provided us, I expect my character to survive things other than unlucky rolls, boss fights, and calculated risks. It's a two-way street. The DM is responsible for giving the players the opportunity to make correct decisions, but the players also need to take that information into account when deciding their course of action.

The DM is allowed to include things in his campaign world that the party isn't ready to fight yet; he just needs to make it reasonably clear what those things are. If the players ignore the information presented to them and decide to take the shortcut through The Valley of Certain Death, then that's not the DM's fault and he has no obligation to save them.

holywhippet
2012-03-21, 06:49 PM
In your case I'd have the PCs run across some locals who have a member of their tribe infected with mummy rot. They know of a magical item that can remove the curse (since mummy rot can only be cured after the curse is removed) but they need the PCs to go get it. After they do the PCs can keep the item (which can cast remove curse once per day).

I don't think the PCs should be kept free from high level monsters - but if you are leading them towards that kind of danger via the plot you should not be doing so. I had one DM throw the party into battle against what was effectively a werewolf (2nd edition) while we were all level 2-3. This was following the plot BTW. Later he put us in a ambush against about a dozen enemies who'd guessed the route we'd be taking. He'd honestly expected us to all get killed.

nedz
2012-03-21, 08:30 PM
In your case I'd have the PCs run across some locals who have a member of their tribe infected with mummy rot. They know of a magical item that can remove the curse (since mummy rot can only be cured after the curse is removed) but they need the PCs to go get it. After they do the PCs can keep the item (which can cast remove curse once per day).

I don't think the PCs should be kept free from high level monsters - but if you are leading them towards that kind of danger via the plot you should not be doing so. I had one DM throw the party into battle against what was effectively a werewolf (2nd edition) while we were all level 2-3. This was following the plot BTW. Later he put us in a ambush against about a dozen enemies who'd guessed the route we'd be taking. He'd honestly expected us to all get killed.
Pretty much this.
You still seem to be molly-coddling them like they were 1st level. You have to give them the opportunity to grow into better players, and you do that by presenting mortal risk. They will often suprise you by winning combats which you thought they would lose. The worst case is that someone has to create a new character, which is less of a big deal than you appear to think.

Krenn
2012-03-22, 02:16 AM
Right now in my current campaign the party is without a cleric... Actually they have very little abjuration-magic since their wizard is always on the offensive.

Since the campaign happens in a desert, away from magic shops and friendly clerics, PCs are pretty much on their own. However some of the desert monsters such as mummies and lamias have offensive powers that desperately need some curative or protective spells, such as Restoration and Remove Curse.

As a DM I feel extremely frustrated, because I have to severely restrict the selection of monsters in order to keep the PCs alive.

What is your view? Should the campaign world be protective towards PCs that are able to handle only very limited encounters or should a DM use wide selection of monsters but limiting the ones that are especially deadly?

How would you feel as a player if your group had four 7th-level characters and your character contracted a mummy rot and within 300 miles there were only low-level Bedouin NPCs? Would you feel that the DM is against you or the poor optimization that you have done as a group?


The hackmaster mentality is clear. As long as the GM dropped enough clues about what they were getting into, failure to prepare or otherwise balance the party is the player's own fault.

Kill them all, and hope that your players will roll up a more intelligent party mix next time.

Remember: "The GM is not out to kill you. He's out to kill you if you're stupid"

W3bDragon
2012-03-22, 04:18 AM
First off, if you're going with what makes sense, then it makes sense for the PCs to stumble upon the remains of past adventurers (prepared to fight mummies) that fell prey to other creatures or traps near where the mummies are. So finding potions or wands or scrolls of whatever you need to combat mummy rot isn't out of the question.

Secondly, and vastly more relevant is, this is a PnP game. Capitalize on that! You literally could do anything you want with it, for example:

The PCs find some hieroglyphics that describe a sacred well that was used to cure the mummy's curse from some hero that saved the town. Turns out that the well is right in the middle of some ruins haunted with many mummies. The PCs figure out that, instead of running out of the ruins looking for a cure for the mummy rot that one of the PCs contracted, they instead need to push forward and quickly, before the magical disease takes hold. Eventually they clear the ruins and find the well, which cures the PC with the power of plot.



The PCs run across a witch doctor/shaman/old man of the desert type NPC. They help him with some quest and in exchange, he gives them some magical herbs that, if taken daily, can delay the onset of mummy rot indefinitely. Even though he doesn't give them the secret of making these herbs, he gives them a supply to last them a month. So even though they eventually have to get back to civilization to get the mummy rot taken care of, they have some time to continue doing what they're doing.


The moral of the story is, just because they don't have access to restoration or remove curse, doesn't mean you shouldn't throw monsters at them that cause ability damage or curses. Just give them a feasible way to take care of it. Stumbling upon potions/scrolls, finding magical locations, or helpful NPCs are just three of many different ways you can handle it.

Its important to note that some might feel that doing things like that undermines the usefulness of a cleric in the party, and as such the players would never bother rolling one and continually depend on you to find solutions for their ailments. That's not a bad thing. If they have to go through a quest to help an NPC, expending resources and precious time, just to get a restoration spell, that only highlights the power of having a cleric along, who could've handled the problem in 10 minutes instead of needing a whole side quest just for 1 lousy spell.

Socratov
2012-03-22, 05:59 AM
or you could use a god in disguise to make one of them a cleric.

it's is not uncommon for god to meddle in the affairs of man, especially if they are 'special'. he will first give them the taste, lie a dealer to a prospect junkie and later makes one of the partymembers swear fealty to him turning him into a cleric (with some nice boons ofcourse) which actually incentifies one of the players to play a cleric (with a hotline worth, say, +2 to DC's?)

TL;DR: plottwist, creation of cleric, bonus for said cleric => party with cleric

Endarire
2012-03-22, 11:58 AM
My motto for fights: "Use something I find interesting and challenging and let them sort it out."

I've tried carefully accounting for balance and anticipating actions only to find things went very differently from what I anticipated. When the going gets tough, and the threat of death or severe pain is imminent, many people start thinking. I call it "Secret Agent Mode."

Deepbluediver
2012-03-22, 12:17 PM
If you like certain thematically-appropriate monsters, but feel they have to much potential for a TPK, do some minor home-brewing to turn down the strength of their Save-or-Die style abilities. For example, make mummy rot a slower wasting disease, giving the PC's more time to find a cure.

If your group is as inexperienced as they seem (seriously, no curative powers at all?) then they won't even notice the difference.

Jerthanis
2012-03-22, 09:06 PM
Creatures have the powers they do for pretty arbitrary reasons. Mummies cause Mummy Rot because a long time ago, someone said, "You know what mummies should do? They should cause you to slowly rot away over time!"

You could include Mummies who instead reconstruct themselves after a night and a day. Or you could have Lamias who become stone statues at will, becoming invincible and immobile, allowing them to wait until the PCs leave before retreating. You could have Sphinxes who have a poisonous bite or sandworms that shoot lightning. Or you could just have antagonists be witches who control crocodiles (or are they alligators? I always mix those two up) or make up your own unique color and flavor of monster and slap whatever abilities you want on them.

You don't have to make the monsters have abilities that standard Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue groups were meant to be able to counter just because some guy somewhere said it was important to have a Cleric in your group. Making enemies have powers the party can't counter makes them much more dangerous than they otherwise would be. Mummy Rot may as well be a save-or-die effect without countermagic.

That said, if there's a wizard, the best way to control what his philosophy is in terms of magic is to give out scrolls and encourage him to scribe them into his book. Give him Abjurations and Remove Curse, and heck, there's NO reason in particular you can't give him what is normally a Cleric-Only spell as a Wizard spell (perhaps with certain downsides) if you really do want them to have access to that magic. The fact that he's mostly offensively set up doesn't mean he can't cure these curses the following day.

navar100
2012-03-22, 10:34 PM
Mummies do not have Mummy Rot for arbitrary reasons. They have Mummy Rot because of real world legend of a Mummy's Curse which you get for disturbing the tomb of a pharaoh in an Egyptian pyramid, leading to death. The archeologists who found King Tut's tomb suffered mysterious deaths, enhancing the legend. Skeptics of the legend say they were infected by a disease from a fungus or microscopic organism that thrived within the buried tomb for millennia.

Mike_G
2012-03-22, 11:20 PM
I will change the campaign so that everyone has fun.

I've made adventures harder if the party was waltzing through with no effort, and easier if the party is getting slammed. I want the party to have to work for victory, but if they use what they have well, it should be possible to succeed.

I had one adventure where they were supposed to track some kidnappers into the city sewers. I wrote it for the usual Fighter/Rogue?Wizard/Cleric party. Well, the players made a Warblade, a Monk, a Barbarian and a Fighter. They guys I expected to play a Wizard wanted to try a Warblade, and our usual Cleric wanted to try a Barbarian. As written that adventure would ennd with an all-melee party dying horribly.

So I cut out the need for spells, reduced enemy casters in number and power, increased the numbers of melee enemies, made the guide they hired an Expert with skills in Search, Disable, Survival, Local Knowledge and First Aid, which worked fine--he was a professional guide, good at keeping them from falling into traps-- but he had no spells or combat abilities to outshine the PCs.

The result was a fun, challenging adventure. Lots of melee combat, everyone limped out with low HP, since they had no Cleric, but they all got to shine at what they wanted to try, and it was a memorable game.

I don't have the time or inclination to "teach the players a lesson." I just want to have fun. To me, that's epitomized by the party who wins a glorious victory with half of them down and the other half at single digit HP and spell slots, out of potions and sweating bullets. A TPK and a "next time, bring a Wizard" speech is the exact opposite of fun.

Averis Vol
2012-03-23, 12:22 AM
I will change the campaign so that everyone has fun.

I've made adventures harder if the party was waltzing through with no effort, and easier if the party is getting slammed. I want the party to have to work for victory, but if they use what they have well, it should be possible to succeed.

I had one adventure where they were supposed to track some kidnappers into the city sewers. I wrote it for the usual Fighter/Rogue?Wizard/Cleric party. Well, the players made a Warblade, a Monk, a Barbarian and a Fighter. They guys I expected to play a Wizard wanted to try a Warblade, and our usual Cleric wanted to try a Barbarian. As written that adventure would ennd with an all-melee party dying horribly.

So I cut out the need for spells, reduced enemy casters in number and power, increased the numbers of melee enemies, made the guide they hired an Expert with skills in Search, Disable, Survival, Local Knowledge and First Aid, which worked fine--he was a professional guide, good at keeping them from falling into traps-- but he had no spells or combat abilities to outshine the PCs.

The result was a fun, challenging adventure. Lots of melee combat, everyone limped out with low HP, since they had no Cleric, but they all got to shine at what they wanted to try, and it was a memorable game.

I don't have the time or inclination to "teach the players a lesson." I just want to have fun. To me, that's epitomized by the party who wins a glorious victory with half of them down and the other half at single digit HP and spell slots, out of potions and sweating bullets. A TPK and a "next time, bring a Wizard" speech is the exact opposite of fun.

i second this. after all if you want to have the perfect party every time you get a group of people together to play and want them to face enemies they cant handle, write a story instead. you can have all the massive op adventures you want without having to worry about a TPK. on the other hand if your playing with some friends of course you tone it down a bit, i mean mummy could just as easily mean zombie wrapped in toilet paper, who will know the difference?

optimization has a role to play in both the PC and DM chairs, so if your group is using very little, you should too.

Jerthanis
2012-03-23, 12:44 AM
Mummies do not have Mummy Rot for arbitrary reasons. They have Mummy Rot because of real world legend of a Mummy's Curse which you get for disturbing the tomb of a pharaoh in an Egyptian pyramid, leading to death. The archeologists who found King Tut's tomb suffered mysterious deaths, enhancing the legend. Skeptics of the legend say they were infected by a disease from a fungus or microscopic organism that thrived within the buried tomb for millennia.

Well, the legend of the vampire has as many interpretations of their powers and abilities as there are legends. The people who wrote D&D didn't compare and contrast every legend with scientific rigor, judging very carefully exactly which mythological monster would win in a fight with every other in order to judge where they'd be placed in a heirarchy that is firmly representative of what such a monster would be like in "Real Life", they just wrote down numbers that sounded good and over time they became reflective of how we think of them.

Mummy Curse might be a gaze attack that causes critical threats against you to be auto-confirmed, or the mummy could reanimate itself as long as those cursed were still alive, gaining strength for each one it had successfully killed. Or it could be a curse on the land, keeping food from growing in any place owned by a person suffering the curse.

I'm just saying, Mythology is a big place, specifically hitting them with the part that can only be countered by one class when they could instead do anything else you could name, just because we're slightly more used to the one the writers wrote only one class with the counter to... it's like if you made golems who could only be slain by someone who strikes the word on their forehead in such a way as to change the word's meaning from, "Life" to "Death" and then had it wipe the party because they didn't have anyone with any Knowledge (Jewish Fokelore) or Languages (Ancient Hebrew)

Autolykos
2012-03-23, 07:08 AM
Short Answer: No

Long Answer:
Your world should include lots of stuff the PCs can't handle. Luckily for the PCs, anything way out of their league shouldn't go after them unless provoked. Give them enough information so they know what to avoid and what to prepare for, and if they die because they picked the wrong fight and haven't added the thirty-sixth stratagem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-Six_Stratagems) to their repertoire of tactical options, they deserved it. On a side note, you should also have your NPCs retreat when horribly outclassed - that way the players won't feel as bad when picking this option.
On the other hand, the plot should not force them to engage enemies they can't defeat. If a TPK is a real possibility, there should be a way to go around the encounter, call in the cavalry or do something else to win without fighting a hopeless battle. In the beginning this option should be relatively easy to find out - don't rely on a single hint, it will be ignored; especially if you pull this the first time on players not used to it.

Kerrin
2012-03-23, 02:38 PM
I will change the campaign so that everyone has fun.

I've made adventures harder if the party was waltzing through with no effort, and easier if the party is getting slammed. I want the party to have to work for victory, but if they use what they have well, it should be possible to succeed.

I had one adventure where they were supposed to track some kidnappers into the city sewers. I wrote it for the usual Fighter/Rogue?Wizard/Cleric party. Well, the players made a Warblade, a Monk, a Barbarian and a Fighter. They guys I expected to play a Wizard wanted to try a Warblade, and our usual Cleric wanted to try a Barbarian. As written that adventure would ennd with an all-melee party dying horribly.

So I cut out the need for spells, reduced enemy casters in number and power, increased the numbers of melee enemies, made the guide they hired an Expert with skills in Search, Disable, Survival, Local Knowledge and First Aid, which worked fine--he was a professional guide, good at keeping them from falling into traps-- but he had no spells or combat abilities to outshine the PCs.

The result was a fun, challenging adventure. Lots of melee combat, everyone limped out with low HP, since they had no Cleric, but they all got to shine at what they wanted to try, and it was a memorable game.

I don't have the time or inclination to "teach the players a lesson." I just want to have fun. To me, that's epitomized by the party who wins a glorious victory with half of them down and the other half at single digit HP and spell slots, out of potions and sweating bullets. A TPK and a "next time, bring a Wizard" speech is the exact opposite of fun.

I gotta say, I like your approach to GMing to the party's tastes in composition.

nedz
2012-03-23, 03:16 PM
Mummies do not have Mummy Rot for arbitrary reasons. They have Mummy Rot because of real world legend of a Mummy's Curse which you get for disturbing the tomb of a pharaoh in an Egyptian pyramid, leading to death. The archeologists who found King Tut's tomb suffered mysterious deaths, enhancing the legend. Skeptics of the legend say they were infected by a disease from a fungus or microscopic organism that thrived within the buried tomb for millennia.
Remove the Mummy Rot and give them HexBlades curse, at will even - or upon whoever lands the final blow :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

I will change the campaign so that everyone has fun.

I've made adventures harder if the party was waltzing through with no effort, and easier if the party is getting slammed. I want the party to have to work for victory, but if they use what they have well, it should be possible to succeed.

I had one adventure where they were supposed to track some kidnappers into the city sewers. I wrote it for the usual Fighter/Rogue?Wizard/Cleric party. Well, the players made a Warblade, a Monk, a Barbarian and a Fighter. They guys I expected to play a Wizard wanted to try a Warblade, and our usual Cleric wanted to try a Barbarian. As written that adventure would ennd with an all-melee party dying horribly.

So I cut out the need for spells, reduced enemy casters in number and power, increased the numbers of melee enemies, made the guide they hired an Expert with skills in Search, Disable, Survival, Local Knowledge and First Aid, which worked fine--he was a professional guide, good at keeping them from falling into traps-- but he had no spells or combat abilities to outshine the PCs.

The result was a fun, challenging adventure. Lots of melee combat, everyone limped out with low HP, since they had no Cleric, but they all got to shine at what they wanted to try, and it was a memorable game.

I don't have the time or inclination to "teach the players a lesson." I just want to have fun. To me, that's epitomized by the party who wins a glorious victory with half of them down and the other half at single digit HP and spell slots, out of potions and sweating bullets. A TPK and a "next time, bring a Wizard" speech is the exact opposite of fun.

Good DMing IMHO

Mike_G
2012-03-23, 04:51 PM
Good DMing IMHO

Thanks.

I've always felt that the whole point of gaming with your friends was to have fun. I've never understood the philosophy that players should be punished for playing what they want to play.

Jlerpy
2012-03-23, 08:10 PM
I don't have the time or inclination to "teach the players a lesson." I just want to have fun. To me, that's epitomized by the party who wins a glorious victory with half of them down and the other half at single digit HP and spell slots, out of potions and sweating bullets. A TPK and a "next time, bring a Wizard" speech is the exact opposite of fun.

This. So very much this.

Wardog
2012-04-05, 05:45 AM
The PCs run across a witch doctor/shaman/old man of the desert type NPC. They help him with some quest and in exchange, he gives them some magical herbs that, if taken daily, can delay the onset of mummy rot indefinitely. Even though he doesn't give them the secret of making these herbs, he gives them a supply to last them a month. So even though they eventually have to get back to civilization to get the mummy rot taken care of, they have some time to continue doing what they're doing.[/LIST]


Seconded.

If mummies and mummy-rot are a problem in the area, then it is reasonable that the locals (or at least one of them) will know of some way to counter the problem.

Just because they don't have a high-enough level cleric to cast the necessary restoration spells (and do all the other things clerics of that level can do) doesn't mean they won't have some other way to cure it. Whether that be a "delay the effects until you can get it cured properly" herb as described above, or an low-level NPC villager with a unique ability that enables them to cure mummy rot but nothing else, or any other solution you can think of.

horseboy
2012-04-05, 06:07 AM
Meh, the Universe does not care if you're optimized, therefore I don't either. The players have chosen to play in a handicapped fashion, who am I to stand in their way of experiencing the repercussions?

Averis Vol
2012-04-05, 07:47 AM
Meh, the Universe does not care if you're optimized, therefore I don't either. The players have chosen to play in a handicapped fashion, who am I to stand in their way of experiencing the repercussions?

the person running the game who's supposed to make a fun and interesting challenge for your group? not someone who spends months making a world then stops using it after the first mission because you TPK'ed the party. :smallconfused: i mean really, why would you waste the time?

navar100
2012-04-05, 08:07 AM
the person running the game who's supposed to make a fun and interesting challenge for your group? not someone who spends months making a world then stops using it after the first mission because you TPK'ed the party. :smallconfused: i mean really, why would you waste the time?

Exactly. Contrary to common DM opinion, the game world actually does revolve around the party. Not "cater", "revolve".

Toofey
2012-04-05, 11:17 AM
Would it work to give them an item that is "weak" healing wise but no use restricted? (so they can use it to heal between fights but it's not really an in fight use item)


that's how I handled a similar situation in my campaign.

Mike_G
2012-04-05, 11:24 AM
Meh, the Universe does not care if you're optimized, therefore I don't either. The players have chosen to play in a handicapped fashion, who am I to stand in their way of experiencing the repercussions?

I don't understand this attitude. "The Universe" is whatever the DM says it is. Would you increase challenges if your party was highly optimized, or would you let them cakewalk through the campaign?

The whole reason things like "levels" and "challenge ratings" exist is so a DM can figure out what should be a reasonable challenge for the party. Would you just say "hey, the Universe doesn't care that the first level party is after kobolds. The Red dragon that the kobolds worship doesn't want the picked on. Experience the repercussions, PC scum!"

I'm not running a CharOp bootcamp. I'm trying to run a fun adventure game. If the players want to play three Rogues, a Monk and a Warlock, I'll rejigger the encounters to challenge that group.

Averis Vol
2012-04-05, 12:35 PM
A thought would be to, if a PC has survival, find herbs and such that can speed up the healing process. for example right now i'm running a low magic, no magic mart campaign, and to compensate i tell my PC's to make sure someone has heal and someone knowledge nature & survival. so if they're ever really hurt they can make a knowledge nature for the herbs of the area for what ailment they have and a survival to find and properly cull it. so they get the herbs and use it with the heal check to heal initial damage equal to 1/3 the heal result and accelerate the natural healing process to 2x. also if their check result is over a certain DC, they regain the use of their limb again (if you've played fallout 3 or new vegas, then think of their limb damage system. i use something similar to that.)

so, rant over, just give them some way to cure their stuff, RAW or not its an interactive game, let them use those fairly useless skills for something good.

horseboy
2012-04-05, 01:41 PM
I don't understand this attitude. "The Universe" is whatever the DM says it is. Would you increase challenges if your party was highly optimized, or would you let them cakewalk through the campaign?

Because the players chose this handicap. It's no different if they'd chosen a four in a stat or to play a character that's blind. If a flaw never comes up, then it's not a flaw.

Sturmcrow
2012-04-05, 02:57 PM
Because the players chose this handicap. It's no different if they'd chosen a four in a stat or to play a character that's blind. If a flaw never comes up, then it's not a flaw.

Playing the character class you want should not be considered a flaw nor should NOT choosing to play a character class.

horseboy
2012-04-05, 04:48 PM
Playing the character class you want should not be considered a flaw nor should NOT choosing to play a character class.
If you (collectively) choose to leave a huge gap in your group's tactical flexibility then the group needs to come up with a way around it, not the GM. So, yeah if there's the three rogues, the monk and the warlock, they need to figure out a way around the problem based on what they can bring to the table rather than the GM pandering to them.

Bastian Weaver
2012-04-05, 05:01 PM
Immunities? No.
Using "bad things" as plot hooks, not random encounters? Sounds like fun.
If a character suffers from Mummy Rot, the bedouins might just know about a possible cure - which is in possession of an arrogant and greedy man who would demand all sorts of services in return for the cure. For example...

navar100
2012-04-05, 06:26 PM
If you (collectively) choose to leave a huge gap in your group's tactical flexibility then the group needs to come up with a way around it, not the GM. So, yeah if there's the three rogues, the monk and the warlock, they need to figure out a way around the problem based on what they can bring to the table rather than the GM pandering to them.

Easy: Find a new GM. Done!

Mike_G
2012-04-05, 06:29 PM
If you (collectively) choose to leave a huge gap in your group's tactical flexibility then the group needs to come up with a way around it, not the GM. So, yeah if there's the three rogues, the monk and the warlock, they need to figure out a way around the problem based on what they can bring to the table rather than the GM pandering to them.

But why do you care if they all want to play those classes? Why should they be punished because nobody wants to play a Wizard?

I don't coddle the party. I'm not saying make it easy and let them win, I just craft my adventures to challenge the party I have, not some theoretical "correct" party. The same way a highly optimized party of a God Wizard, a Factotum, a Warblade and a CoDzilla will not be challenged by a campaign written fro the "standard" old school Blaster, Healer, Fighter, Rogue.

I totally disagree with punishing a party who want to play a given class. You can write a campaign to challenge any party of any composition or level of optimization, why is it wrong to adjust for what your friends actually want to play?

huttj509
2012-04-05, 07:24 PM
I think there's also a pertinent difference between situations like "a cliff? If we had a wizard we could just fly" and "mummy rot: do you have a cleric or divine caster with scrolls ready? Yes/no/**** **** **** ****!"

If the solution to a problem is specifically "have ____ class, or ____ spell prepared and on hand" it's not a good problem to use without LOTS of warning, because there's no alternatives unless you shoehorn some in.

I mean, mummy rot does 1d6 con and 1d6 cha per day, can kill, remove curse is level 4 for sorc/wiz (mummys are CR 5, so requiring a level 8 sorc or level 7 wiz for that part is rough, heck, you need a level 5 cleric and a DC 20 caster level check for the curse removal, then you need a remove disease to actually get rid of it, don't use a mummy as a party level +X encounter unless you gave them scrolls or something).

Now the fort save DC isn't too bad (16), but if you don't have remove curse and disease that's an average of 3 days of failed fort saves until death by 0 CHA if the character started with 10 (and so many folks pump charisma, right?).

This is different from "gosh, you're hunting a red dragon, sure would be nice to have some ice spells...or dex damage" because there's still taking the dragon down the hard way. Unless you, the DM, inserts some items or friendly NPCs, there is NO way to remove mummy rot without both remove curse and disease.

Sutremaine
2012-04-05, 09:40 PM
death by 0 CHA if the character started with 10 (and so many folks pump charisma, right?).
0 Cha isn't directly fatal, but it does take you out of the world of the sentient.

huttj509
2012-04-05, 09:45 PM
0 Cha isn't directly fatal, but it does take you out of the world of the sentient.

Aha, yer right, I misread the blurb and thought it said it continues until the character reaches CON 0 or CHA 0 (and dies), as opposed to CON only. Thought it was an exception there.

Mea culpa.

lotusblossom13
2012-04-06, 05:16 PM
Some people may disagree with me, but if the party is not too big, a DMPC may be a good solution to fill the gap.

My DM in the past added a character who worked for the king that we went on missions for and recorded our progress in a journal. Other than that he was a rather unobtrusive character in the party an never tried to steal the limelight from the PCs, but he did help fill a gap when the group faced encounters.

This might not work for every GM, but in our case it did, especially because most of the players were inexperienced and sometimes needed someone to help guide us on how to approach various situations.

Mike_G
2012-04-06, 05:37 PM
Some people may disagree with me, but if the party is not too big, a DMPC may be a good solution to fill the gap.

My DM in the past added a character who worked for the king that we went on missions for and recorded our progress in a journal. Other than that he was a rather unobtrusive character in the party an never tried to steal the limelight from the PCs, but he did help fill a gap when the group faced encounters.

This might not work for every GM, but in our case it did, especially because most of the players were inexperienced and sometimes needed someone to help guide us on how to approach various situations.

Plenty of people consider a DMPC to be an unthinkable abomination. I'm cool with them if they are used properly. Filling a role that nobody wants to play, acting as a guide or local expert who can act as an informational resource, a way for a DM to gently remind new players of rules and options they might forget, that's fine.

You just need to make sure not to steal the spotlight.

An NPC healbot Cleric could work for this group. As long as the DM resists the temptation to CoDzilla out.

Morithias
2012-04-06, 05:58 PM
This debate is why I almost always run my campaign concepts by my players BEFORE they enter the campaign. For example in my alchemy island campaign I tell them they're fighting drow in the underdark, for the wailing death I tell them they're fighting undead, for the demon king I tell them they're fighting fiends and paladins (I swear the combo of those two makes more sense in context, but I've talked enough about it on these boards).

This way I figure if I flat out tell them "You're going to face a lot of undead" BEFORE they even make their characters, it's their own damn fault if all 3 of them roll up rogues or enchanters or bards. Of course my players are the type of players who could probably do that and still manage to win...

In general poor optimization shouldn't give immunity to bad things...but there's also a reason why I make my campaigns big bad's in full ahead of time...so the players can't accuse me of cheating.

In the end, yes it's about storytelling, but I'm not sure if your players want a story where the villain who has 34 intelligence needs to have his firm grip on the idiot ball in order for them to have any chance of winning. It cheapens their victories.

Mike_G
2012-04-06, 06:27 PM
This debate is why I almost always run my campaign concepts by my players BEFORE they enter the campaign. For example in my alchemy island campaign I tell them they're fighting drow in the underdark, for the wailing death I tell them they're fighting undead, for the demon king I tell them they're fighting fiends and paladins (I swear the combo of those two makes more sense in context, but I've talked enough about it on these boards).

This way I figure if I flat out tell them "You're going to face a lot of undead" BEFORE they even make their characters, it's their own damn fault if all 3 of them roll up rogues or enchanters or bards. Of course my players are the type of players who could probably do that and still manage to win...

In general poor optimization shouldn't give immunity to bad things...but there's also a reason why I make my campaigns big bad's in full ahead of time...so the players can't accuse me of cheating.

In the end, yes it's about storytelling, but I'm not sure if your players want a story where the villain who has 34 intelligence needs to have his firm grip on the idiot ball in order for them to have any chance of winning. It cheapens their victories.


I'm not advocating dumbing down the enemy, or handing the party an easy victory. I'm advocating tailoring the adventure to challenge the party that the players want to play. If the party wants to play Rogues and Enchanters, make an adventure that would challenge Rogues and Enchanters. Not be a cakewalk for Rogues and Enchanters, but challenge them. Throw in really deadly traps, high Reflex DC attacks, enemies with good Will saves, but not huge numbers of undead or constructs.

Now if they ignore the hints, like when you tell them "you guys are headed to an ancient tomb. As in Tomb. As in 'full of dead things.' Hint hint. So, you guys want to buy any special gear?" and they say "Nah, we've all got our rapiers and do tons of sneak attack damage. We'll be fine." Then you can say "Told you so." But if nobody wants to play a Wizard, don't throw in a challenge that requires a Wizard.

Ignoring hints is one thing. Wanting to play a Fighter is another.

Urpriest
2012-04-06, 07:28 PM
How would you feel as a player if your group had four 7th-level characters and your character contracted a mummy rot and within 300 miles there were only low-level Bedouin NPCs? Would you feel that the DM is against you or the poor optimization that you have done as a group?

Sorry if this has been asked in the thread already, but what do the Bedouins do when they get Mummy Rot?

Morithias
2012-04-06, 08:14 PM
I'm not advocating dumbing down the enemy, or handing the party an easy victory. I'm advocating tailoring the adventure to challenge the party that the players want to play. If the party wants to play Rogues and Enchanters, make an adventure that would challenge Rogues and Enchanters. Not be a cakewalk for Rogues and Enchanters, but challenge them. Throw in really deadly traps, high Reflex DC attacks, enemies with good Will saves, but not huge numbers of undead or constructs.

Now if they ignore the hints, like when you tell them "you guys are headed to an ancient tomb. As in Tomb. As in 'full of dead things.' Hint hint. So, you guys want to buy any special gear?" and they say "Nah, we've all got our rapiers and do tons of sneak attack damage. We'll be fine." Then you can say "Told you so." But if nobody wants to play a Wizard, don't throw in a challenge that requires a Wizard.

Ignoring hints is one thing. Wanting to play a Fighter is another.

So the players should get all the enjoyment and the DM shouldn't be allowed to tell the story he wants to tell? I'm suppose to ask my players ahead of time what they want to play, then plan around it, and continue to alter it if they change a character mid-campaign?

It's the DM's game too you know. In fact I'd almost argue it's more the DM's game, sure there are usually more players then DM's, but the DM is the one putting all the bloody work into it.

Okay, so they have no wizard, so don't put something that needs a wizard to be killed I can see that to a degree, but if I flat out tell my players ahead of time what the campaign is about and what they're fighting I'm not rewriting my entire campaign because you have this one-trick pony build you want to try.

For example, I told my players I want to try the x-crawl campaign setting and it's going to involve a lot of dungeoneering and little talking and that it's mostly for me to test out new rules and such. So I get a monk that's a good tank, a ranger with trapfinding, and a cleric of the god of sports.

Working with your players is the best way to play, not let your players walk all over your creation, and if your players are so stuck up that they can't fathom the Dm not doing everything for them, well I have a saying for that. "Rule -1 works both ways."

Mike_G
2012-04-06, 08:29 PM
So the players should get all the enjoyment and the DM shouldn't be allowed to tell the story he wants to tell? I'm suppose to ask my players ahead of time what they want to play, then plan around it, and continue to alter it if they change a character mid-campaign?

It's the DM's game too you know. In fact I'd almost argue it's more the DM's game, sure there are usually more players then DM's, but the DM is the one putting all the bloody work into it.

Okay, so they have no wizard, so don't put something that needs a wizard to be killed I can see that to a degree, but if I flat out tell my players ahead of time what the campaign is about and what they're fighting I'm not rewriting my entire campaign because you have this one-trick pony build you want to try.

For example, I told my players I want to try the x-crawl campaign setting and it's going to involve a lot of dungeoneering and little talking and that it's mostly for me to test out new rules and such. So I get a monk that's a good tank, a ranger with trapfinding, and a cleric of the god of sports.

Working with your players is the best way to play, not let your players walk all over your creation, and if your players are so stuck up that they can't fathom the Dm not doing everything for them, well I have a saying for that. "Rule -1 works both ways."

I'm not saying throw out your campaign and write one for the players, but in an ongoing campaign with an established party, yeah, I do write adventures with that party in mind.

I already agreed that if they ignore your hints, it's their own fault that they can't Sneak Attack the nest of Vampires. Maybe they should have stocked up on Holy Water, or the Rogue with UMD could have bought a wand or scroll that would have helped.

I just argued against punishing a party who want to play low optimization, or not have any primary spellcasters or whatever. If you look back a page, I had a party who unexpectedly showed up with all melee characters, and I did adjust the adventure to lower the challenges that would have been normally resolved with spells, and increased the melee combat challenges. It was a lot of fun.

D&D is a co-operative experience. The players should listen to you when you say this quest is to raid the Tomb of the Lich King, and plan accordingly. You should listen to them if they say they just don't enjoy playing Clerics and make some kind of accommodation.

I don't say the DM should be a servant and entertainer, dancing as the players throw him grapes, but neither do I want the DM to be Drill Instructor Deathwish Drang, here to break the souls of those who cannot adapt.

Kesnit
2012-04-07, 08:28 AM
An NPC healbot Cleric could work for this group. As long as the DM resists the temptation to CoDzilla out.

I ran a short campaign with 2 players and a DMPC named Healbot. Really, that was the name on the sheet. She only prepared spells like Cure, Remove Curse, buffs (never used on herself), etc. Took Extra Turning and a few meta-magic feats (extend, maximize) to make her Cures and buffs/debuffs more effective. She was also dumb as a stump (INT less than 10), so there was no way she could solve a problem.



So the players should get all the enjoyment and the DM shouldn't be allowed to tell the story he wants to tell? I'm suppose to ask my players ahead of time what they want to play, then plan around it, and continue to alter it if they change a character mid-campaign?

It's the DM's game too you know. In fact I'd almost argue it's more the DM's game, sure there are usually more players then DM's, but the DM is the one putting all the bloody work into it.

You seem to think these two are mutually exclusive.

Prepared an undead campaign and your party shows up with Rogues and Enchanters? Drop magical items that allow Rogues to sneak-attack undead and an item that grants a meta-magic feat to allow mind-effecting to affect mindless. Or change some of the mindless to ones that have INT scores. Or change some of the undead to mortal slaves.

No divine casters in the party? As others have said in this thread, magical items (or even mundane herbs) that can fill in for divine spells. Or plot-based NPCs that can mitigate the disease.

The players have no way to know how you originally wrote the story (unless you tell them). So they have no way to know how you changed the story to fit what they built.

Eigenclass
2012-04-07, 10:34 AM
It's the DM's game too you know. In fact I'd almost argue it's more the DM's game, sure there are usually more players then DM's, but the DM is the one putting all the bloody work into it.

No offence, but this sounds like that one kid who wants to take his ball and go home because he doesn't get to shoot any free throws.

Let's say that this is your story, and the players are nothing but bit-part actors, and for having the audacity to play what's fun for them rather than what fits best into "your story", you punish them. What outcome would you expect out of this scenario? Everyone realizes the folly of not doing what you want, and just obeys you blindly next time? Sounds kind of like you want to play an RTS instead - the little people with tiny weapons don't have any independent personality to express at all, and they'll do exactly what you direct.

Building adventures for just the "classic" expectation of having a cleric, a wizard, a rogue or what have you - that's harmful or both players and the DM. For the players, it gets boring that there's one "right answer" for any given situation, and for the DM, it's boring to write linear, Gygaxian adventures that aren't significantly different from anything you've played before.

It can be really rewarding and fun to run groups that don't have spells to throw at any situation you could put them in - it gives the characters more importance in the story and makes for some creative storytelling.

Here's some ideas for what you could do:

The desert itself as a hostile environment could require survival checks to navigate, and what few resources there are would be fiercely contested by the other denizens. Some adventure hooks:

There's a sandstorm approaching, but the only shelter for miles is a cave inhabited by (sleeping) ogres. Either bargain for shelter or take it by force.
The party finds an oasis, but there's a high-CR monster in there that was left by a long-dead civilization to protect their water source.
The party has to navigate quicksand.


Non-magical enemies don't necessarily have to be weaker or less interesting than magical enemies. Just because it's D&D doesn't mean every farmboy and commoner routinely encounters high magic - there's lots of other stuff you can throw at your PCs. There are also magical threats that you can deal with in mundane ways as well, like in the old Sindbad movies.

The party sees a horde of bandits forcibly carrying some women away against their will. There are too many to fight directly, but if they follow the bandits, back to their lair, they can infiltrate it and find a treasure trove (including a wand of Cure Serious Wounds or whatever) and get rewarded for rescuing the women, who turn out to be djinn. If they wipe out the lair, then they can take possession of the bandits' stronghold and have a nice base of ops in the desert, stocked with provisions.
A pack of dire jackals led by a were-jackal starts stalking the group. They don't necessarily attack, and their motives are unknown. You can either have this guy be an ally against powerful magical monsters, or use him as a recurring threat that raids the camp night after night until he's killed or the party finds out what he wants.
Tricky desert spirits harass the party with illusions and mirages by some ancient ruins (and follow them if they leave). There's no way to fight them, and they're tormented by ancient guilt. The only way to make them stop is to figure out what they want, either by solving puzzles or making lore checks, and talking them into letting go of their negative emotions.
A griffin or simurgh or something kidnaps the party's caster or supplies and takes them to the top of a high mesa. The party has to get up their either by making some challenging Climb checks or finding a tricky pass guarded by an ancient Iron Golem, and then passing its challenge to gain access to the pass.

shadow_archmagi
2012-04-08, 01:32 PM
Because the players chose this handicap. It's no different if they'd chosen a four in a stat or to play a character that's blind. If a flaw never comes up, then it's not a flaw.


Does this mean that if I play a Wizard when what my group really needs is a Cleric, I can get an extra feat? :smallwink:



not let your players walk all over your creation


I think this is a corollary to the "Choose To Act Differently" (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) article, only in this case instead of a player declaring "That's how my character would react" it's the DM declaring "That's how the world would react. This world is full of undead, undead are immune to sneak attack, squid pro quo your lives are going to be horrible. I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it. It's simple logic. You shouldn't have been so stupid as to forget to force Steve to play a cleric."

Your creation is literally designed to be walked on. That's what the world is for. People walk on planets.

If all of your friends (and I'm assuming here that you have a regular group of friends, rather than working on the play-by-post system, which works under different social circumstances) want to play rogues, beguilers, and enchanters, you should rework your adventure (or run a different one, because what DM doesn't keep that drawer full of ideas?) Even if you're heart is set on playing Undead Island, you can still just rework it to include relatively few actual undead combats- The players can confront necromancers, cultists, fiends, etc. and let the NPC paladins worry about actually cleansing the countryside of every last ghoul. It's not like you weren't constantly adapting and rewriting the adventure as a good DM already.

Magesmiley
2012-04-10, 02:29 PM
Right now in my current campaign the party is without a cleric... Actually they have very little abjuration-magic since their wizard is always on the offensive.

Since the campaign happens in a desert, away from magic shops and friendly clerics, PCs are pretty much on their own. However some of the desert monsters such as mummies and lamias have offensive powers that desperately need some curative or protective spells, such as Restoration and Remove Curse.

As a DM I feel extremely frustrated, because I have to severely restrict the selection of monsters in order to keep the PCs alive.

What is your view? Should the campaign world be protective towards PCs that are able to handle only very limited encounters or should a DM use wide selection of monsters but limiting the ones that are especially deadly?

How would you feel as a player if your group had four 7th-level characters and your character contracted a mummy rot and within 300 miles there were only low-level Bedouin NPCs? Would you feel that the DM is against you or the poor optimization that you have done as a group?

Well, I for one never pull punches with the players. Nor do I specifically tailor the encounters for particular mix of characters. I do use a wide mix of encounters however. Sometimes the group benefits from having an unusual mix of character and sometimes it hurts them. And I don't necessarily even prevent the deadly ones from showing up now and then - knowing when to run is a critical skill too.

And yes, I do let the PCs die if they've made poor choices or not thought things through.

My players have learned that it pays to plan ahead as a result. Thinking about what is coming up and how to handle different situations when you don't have the 'ideal' mix of capabilities is very important. IMO its a shining point for the game.

And sometimes that means trying to figure out how to cope with detrimental effects to the characters too. There's nothing wrong with a character having to suffer with a detrimental effect for an extended period of time. The search for a cure can be as interesting as the adventure where the effect was received.

In your case, your comments seem to suggest that you've been pulling punches on what mix of creatures run up against the players. Its time to advise them that you're not going to do it any more. There will be stuff out there that can take them apart or hurt them badly if they don't use their heads. If they barrel into situations without thinking about the consequences, they're going to bite the dust.

TBH, by 7th level, the players should have a pretty fair idea of what they need to do to cope without a cleric. They should have devoted some resources to handling that situation. If they haven't - again its poor planning on their part.

Clawhound
2012-04-10, 02:37 PM
You can throw anything at the players as long as there is a way to find the cure.

Locals may have the cure. It doesn't have to be expensive, but it may require a few favors.

Does this problem lend itself to a good story? If the answer is yes, then run with it.

Jon_Dahl
2012-04-11, 05:16 AM
An update:
I decided not to use anything the PCs didn't have resources to cure or defeat on their own. So no mummies or anything like this. The furthest I went was to use a lamia, which caused Wis drain. However Wisdom wasn't a vital stat for any of the characters. Actually no harm was done at all even though Wisdom was drained by 4 points.

In the end they met a friendly NPC-cleric (7th level) who was willing to do perform any spells they wished. After some curing and other nice things, they set their course to home over gigantic mountains.

There were three 8th-level PCs when they met a young red dragon (CR7) and the PCs were fully rested. They had very little time to prepare for the encounter. Two of them died and the next characters will have a heavy arsenal of curative magic.

I did not mean for a near-TPK to occur, but at least now they have means to cure themselves and half the kingdom if they wish...

Averis Vol
2012-04-13, 02:06 PM
its good to see it worked out (relatively) well. death is inevitable, whether it be bad rolls or bad tactics, good rolls or good tactics. and now your party has some extra defenses so they can take on a wider array of enemies and you can throw in a few more interesting creatures.

EDIT: a near death situation is necessary sometimes to get the characters to remember they aren't invincible (which every character thinks they are, lets be honest :smallbiggrin:)