Teaching a Lesson

[Azoth]

After having read the Tucker's Kobolds thread again, I got to thinking. How many of us as DMs have used otherwise trivial encounters to teach players lessons or reinforce certain lessons? How have we done it, and how effective has it been?

Some of mine include fun moments with players not understanding how certain abilities can be down right evil.

I can't remember the monster's name, but on the SRD is a CR 1/2 psionic worm that can dominate a target it attaches to. Take a level five party, and have them be distracted by a battle. The trip happy psywar never even noticed the bugger until the fight was over and I took his sheet and proceeded to decimate the party nearly killing them.

Another fun one had to be when the two clunking cans in a different campaign kept following the party scout and screwing his stealth over to no end. Greatly frustrating both myself and the player. Enter a 60ft diameter cave coated in sleeping shocker lizards. Need I say more about what happened to our less than quiet tin cans...suffice to say they learned the importance of a scout and letting him do his job.

Some times though, it surprises me when players enjoy these things. I will never forget the first encounter of a game I ran my first year in college. All experienced players, but new to me as a DM. I am the type to use enemies and terrain intelligently and movement is a big part of my battles. Ambushes often have the first wave chargers, followed by support troops with better armor, and terrain providing tacticle snipers hiding a ways back...occassionally even traps in the area to help seperate and disable party members. None so great that a TPK is gauranteed or even likely if my players keep their heads.

This group panicked at first, a few ran and fell off short drops in the woods, some got bullrushed into pitfalls, others were pincushions the first round. Surprisingly, instead of getting mad or dying helplessly, they pulled themselves together and managed to win the battle. One player even asked if he could have the map showing movements, and my notes for the fight to show his regular DM. He said it was the most fun battle he ever had, and that is how battles should always be. Come to find out, his usual DM was a fan of marching order combat where waves came out and kind of just traded full attacks until someone was victorious.

So I guess, in the end, teaching players respect for enemies and combat can be both a good thing and bad...all depending of how it is done and how the players feel about it.

So please share your stories, and lets learn from one another.

[Mari01]

I had one recently. We switched from 3.5 to PF and some people were complaining about things that had gotten changed. I felt that Power Attack and Cleave were better, but my group disagreed since you couldn't take such a massive penalty to hit. One NPC barbarian with a couple minions later and 3/4 of the party was unconscious. They think twice about judging things at face value now. :P

[Averis Vol]

my group tends to ignore their surroundings and shoot straight for there goal. okay, not always a bad thing; but the campaign i'm running has my group at war with a neighboring nation who really like their ambush tactics. one included using moss floating down a river as cover, and reeds poking through for air.

they made 9 spot checks and didn't even notice until they completely bombed their hide check (nat 2) and sprung out of the water and flung jars of oil onto their supplies and the two man teams (one archer/oil thrower and one pitch bearer/lighter) proceeded to burn up their supplies for the next 2 months. all in all this was 6 first level warriors vs 5 pc's. so they have to ride back to town and explain the whole shtick to the man in charge. :smallbiggrin:

about a month goes by so they can heal up their wounds (this continent of the world is very magic light, and therefore only produces a slight few casters) so they go on to there next mission, a good will venture to a tribe of barbarians. so by now they know of the enemies fondness for lighting their stuff on fire and they try to prepare against it by putting slide off tarp panels on their wagons. so two days down the road and they haven't taken a single spot check ( :smallannoyed: ) and the enemy has taken note of their protection, so this time, they brought two jars of stuff, one oil, and one dirty water. so day three they are still derping along the path and out of holes on the side of the road that had been covered in the original sheet of grass (all sigurd the dragon slayer style) they launch their surprise. so each group starts with the jar of dirty water. all the group hears is the breaking of glass so they drop the cover tarp hoping to save their materials and hop into position.

next turn the enemy lets fly the oil and burns 1/4 of their gifts to the barbarians up along with poisoning captain azrim (the pseudo DMPC of mine who does nothing but make whitty comments and occasionally give directions) all in all everyone survived but Azrim, who was now fighting a deathly poisoning and, yet again, had to explain to the barbarians why a large portion of their gifts were melted. :smallbiggrin:

the lesson taught is that the world is interactive, if you try to fly by blindly, bad things will happen.

[Water_Bear]

Uh, not to be a spoilsport here but this sounds like really bad DMing.

Sure, if a Player makes a stupid choice their character should pay the price*, but don't go out to "teach your players a lesson." I mean, has anyone ever "taught a lesson" to someone they respect?

If your Players don't respect the villain, maybe it's because you haven't made them a credible and believable adversary. If your Players don't like your setting/plot/NPCs maybe you should re-evaluate them. If the Players disagree with you on a balance issue, direct them to the forums instead of wasting time trying to demonstrate your point via Rule 0.

Settle issues with Players outside of the game, and issues with Characters inside of it. It saves headaches and allows for clearer communication.

*I prefer to ask Players "Are you sure?" before they do anything mind-bendingly stupid. Somehow the plan to beat up a small child to impress an order of Paladins** sounds less appealing after the three magic words.

**Yes, my PCs actually thought that would be a viable plan. :smallannoyed:

[Lonely Tylenol]

Uh, not to be a spoilsport here but this sounds like really bad DMing.

Sure, if a Player makes a stupid choice their character should pay the price*, but don't go out to "teach your players a lesson." I mean, has anyone ever "taught a lesson" to someone they respect?

If your Players don't respect the villain, maybe it's because you haven't made them a credible and believable adversary. If your Players don't like your setting/plot/NPCs maybe you should re-evaluate them. If the Players disagree with you on a balance issue, direct them to the forums instead of wasting time trying to demonstrate your point via Rule 0.

Settle issues with Players outside of the game, and issues with Characters inside of it. It saves headaches and allows for clearer communication.

*I prefer to ask Players "Are you sure?" before they do anything mind-bendingly stupid. Somehow the plan to beat up a small child to impress an order of Paladins** sounds less appealing after the three magic words.

**Yes, my PCs actually thought that would be a viable plan. :smallannoyed:

...You didn't read the thread, did you?

The thread isn't about "teaching your players a lesson"; it's about modeling learning experiences to help your players grow. You know, teaching. A lesson.

As a senior education major (gunning for my teaching credentials), I tend to do this a lot, which is how I know that the 1/2 CR psychic slugs you are referencing are Puppeteers, from the SRD - because I've used them myself. I am running an E6 game with a large party, where damage is king. I also fly off-island to do workshops for my Bachelor's program, so on weeks that I can't run the game, I write out the adventure and have one of my co-DMs do it. The first time this happened, the entire party was level two, and part of one of the paths (the party was split up in pursuit of miners) contained three Grimlocks controlled by Puppeteers, and, well... this happened (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231605), mostly (entirely) because I wasn't running the game (this is the equivalent of a "sub day" in teaching terms, where you don't get to pick the sub), and as a result, five members of the party each had to make 13 saves (I was lenient) against the psychic cries of the Puppeteers. Miraculously, the Favored Soul saves, and runs off to tell the others who were waiting across the bridge. The mind-controlled half of the party tried to "convert" the remaining half, at first through coercion and then through force, and the other half cut the bridge, splitting them again (which I actually didn't foresee happening). This was kind of a failed lesson, since the actual delivery didn't happen, but a lesson nonetheless.

A more recent (and more successful) lesson would be my party, now level 5, barreling through the tunnels of a slave trading network, using the "damage is king" mentality to brute-force most of the encounters... Up until they found an outpost where everyone was already dead, with no signs of injury and faces contorted in pain, and tons of yellow-green blood was smeared... Everywhere. The players kept seeing movement in the flicker of their eyes, down hallways and through doors... And when one member opened the door in pursuit of these flashes, they suddenly felt an intense pain in their chest and on their neck. Two others rushed to his aid, and the three felt the sensation of claws raking down their backs. When they finally threw open the door (and saw a barbed tail flicker out of view), they chased it down the hallway and nearly focus-fired the thing to death... Until they saw what it was doing.

As the first few members of the party rounded a corner, they saw one Jovoc digging his claws deep into the stomach of the other, causing it--and all of those characters--to nearly double over, writhing in pain. The players realized that anything they did to these creatures would happen to them in kind, and they were forced to come up with an unconventional solution--which, for them, meant pinning each one separately, and then delivering a coup de grace while it was helpless to resist (this turned out to be the Halfling Psion biting into its jugular). Lateral thinking! Yay!

[Mari01]

Uh, not to be a spoilsport here but this sounds like really bad DMing.

Sure, if a Player makes a stupid choice their character should pay the price*, but don't go out to "teach your players a lesson." I mean, has anyone ever "taught a lesson" to someone they respect?

If your Players don't respect the villain, maybe it's because you haven't made them a credible and believable adversary. If your Players don't like your setting/plot/NPCs maybe you should re-evaluate them. If the Players disagree with you on a balance issue, direct them to the forums instead of wasting time trying to demonstrate your point via Rule 0.

Settle issues with Players outside of the game, and issues with Characters inside of it. It saves headaches and allows for clearer communication.

*I prefer to ask Players "Are you sure?" before they do anything mind-bendingly stupid. Somehow the plan to beat up a small child to impress an order of Paladins** sounds less appealing after the three magic words.

**Yes, my PCs actually thought that would be a viable plan. :smallannoyed:

No. It's necessary. There are times where all players do really dumb things. In my example, no one actually died or lost anything. Doesn't mean you have to take everything away from them just so they learn something. Like you said, if the players don't respect the BBEG, a good beating (need not be physical) surely will put the fear/hate in them.

[prufock]

I try not to use "teaching a lesson" in the negative judicial way. That is, I don't want to use it to punish my players. However I will sometimes try to teach the characters a lesson. And I know, it's a thin line dividing the two. For instance, though, I wouldn't do the power attack trick that Mari01 did above, because that's more a rules thing which, in my opinion, punishes the players for rules disagreements.

However, I will use it to reinforce things like teamwork, caution, fair play, sharing, etc - lessons that the characters should take to heart. Even this is difficult to do, because I find much of the time players will see things in binary: if they succeed, their tactics are fine, but if they fail, I'm putting them against too great a challenge.

I should point out that this is rarely a thing I do with my players. We've been playing in the same group for years, and I personally disapprove of party in-fighting.

Examples:
1) Two characters are greedy and are always arguing about treasure, especially tasty magic items. They might try to trick one another, hide it from one another, steal it, or even come to blows over it. If this is occuring on a regular basis, I will put a very nice item useful to both of them in a pile of loot, let them fight over it, then give the winner his spoils - a cursed item. This is not a surefire lesson, though, because they'll naturally conclude that a) cursed items are rare, so the next pile of loot won't have one, and we'll be back to our old tricks OR b) still fight over loot, just be more careful.

2) Teamwork. Sometimes players just forget that they can help the rogue by flanking, or that they should keep tabs on anyone who is in need of healing, or that they should protect the spellcaster. Sometimes they go off half-cocked into battle. All you have to do in this case is show by example - the bad guys are using good tactics. The downside is this may have the unfortunate outcome of getting the party members killed (something I personally like to avoid most of the time). However, some good dialogue from the bad guys can be instructive as well.
"The wizard is wide open, boys! Swarm! Swarm!"

3) Sometimes players are a bit too headstrong, smashing open the dungeon, killing everything in sight, and taking the spoils. This is when we introduce Tucker's kobolds. I've found this one actually works quite well if you make it clear that these guys are PREPARED.

4) Watch your dialogue. Sometimes PCs get into the mindset that "I'm bad, I'll say what I want," often insulting people of influence. If they do this with impunity, let there be consequences. They may become wanted men, they may have to stand trial, maybe the noble they just badmouthed is very popular and the township turns on them, refusing to sell them goods, refusing to let them stay at inns. The downside: if you have impetuous players this can spiral out of control. They may become the villains of the piece.

[meto30]

I'd recommend to use caution on to whom you use this technique, because there are some players who'd just want to be left alone.

I once used to do this extensively to one... seriously underperforming player, which very poor grasp on basic tactics (and refusing to play easier classes first). The result? He finally realized what was happening, screamed at me over the phone about how I was treating him as a complete fool, and left the party. He never spoke to me again. Huh.

Some people I guess just don't have the willingness to learn.

[Mari01]

What I did didn't punish them in any way. The fight with the barbarian was unavoidable. The feats he had would've made him hit even harder. Our group has a tendency of looking at things strictly high-op. As in, if you're not hitting for 8 million damage with your power attack, you're not doing it right. The barbarian simply showed that there were alternative routes to doing your job, even if its not the best.



I try not to use "teaching a lesson" in the negative judicial way. That is, I don't want to use it to punish my players. However I will sometimes try to teach the characters a lesson. And I know, it's a thin line dividing the two. For instance, though, I wouldn't do the power attack trick that Mari01 did above, because that's more a rules thing which, in my opinion, punishes the players for rules disagreements.

Examples:
1) Two characters are greedy and are always arguing about treasure, especially tasty magic items. They might try to trick one another, hide it from one another, steal it, or even come to blows over it. If this is occuring on a regular basis, I will put a very nice item useful to both of them in a pile of loot, let them fight over it, then give the winner his spoils - a cursed item. This is not a surefire lesson, though, because they'll naturally conclude that a) cursed items are rare, so the next pile of loot won't have one, and we'll be back to our old tricks OR b) still fight over loot, just be more careful.

2) Teamwork. Sometimes players just forget that they can help the rogue by flanking, or that they should keep tabs on anyone who is in need of healing, or that they should protect the spellcaster. Sometimes they go off half-cocked into battle. All you have to do in this case is show by example - the bad guys are using good tactics. The downside is this may have the unfortunate outcome of getting the party members killed (something I personally like to avoid most of the time). However, some good dialogue from the bad guys can be instructive as well.
"The wizard is wide open, boys! Swarm! Swarm!"

3) Sometimes players are a bit too headstrong, smashing open the dungeon, killing everything in sight, and taking the spoils. This is when we introduce Tucker's kobolds. I've found this one actually works quite well if you make it clear that these guys are PREPARED.

All of those things have the potential of killing a player off. Your lessons seem much harsher than mine. Going out of your way to give your players a cursed item just because they have item discrepancies seems worse than changing an NPC's feats from toughness and improved initiative to cleave and vital strike. On your second point, ALL enemies you face should be using good tactics. In my opinion, animals won't know a wizard from a fighter, but that guy that's easier to bite sure makes sense to bite first.

[Morithias]

Probably my most controversal "lesson" taught was "the heroes don't always win in my setting". Basically it was to teach them, that 90% of the time, villains in my setting aren't beat on the first try, but rather through a war of attrition when the tenth group comes.

It involved a vampire brothel. A bit of drugged wine and the conjour was pinned to the bed naked and sucked dry by the half-nymph vampire, then she walks downstairs and dominates the berserker, causing the dragon shaman to flee.

Now the group was ECL 13 at the time, and she was CR 15, as was the "master" that they killed 5 minutes prior to her tricking them into drinking the wine.

Ultimately it was to show that in a world where power gaming and research goes on, villains do often win (cause let's face it, they have some of the best and most powerful stuff).

[meto30]

Ultimately it was to show that in a world where power gaming and research goes on, villains do often win (cause let's face it, they have some of the best and most powerful stuff).

Indeed. I concur fully with this. It is sometimes sad that players see nothing but source of loot in their villains, especially the henchmen.

Although as I'm doing an FR campaign, there are thousands upon thousands of NPCS of higher level than the PCs right now, so fortunately(?) I'm finding it easy to convince them of the above point...

Also, I find things hard to believe when villains are bound by the NPC wealth level table. Therefore I make sure they have wealth befitting their stature, and come up with creative ways to limit the wealth PCs are gaining.

[prufock]

What I did didn't punish them in any way. The fight with the barbarian was unavoidable.
Maybe so, but the way you stated it made it sound like you decked him out to prove to the players that PA was too powerful.


All of those things have the potential of killing a player off. Your lessons seem much harsher than mine.

1. Cursed item: No chance of killing a player. As DM I define what the curse is. It may be innocuous but annoying, or a small mechanical penalty, but won't be anything fatal. Including a particular cursed item in a treasure haul is no more "going out of your way" than including any beneficial item in a treasure haul.

2 & 3. Possible chance of killing the character, but also at my discretion. I can take prisoners, for example. The enemy may want information, might save them as a fresh snack for later, or might be bringing them to a superior officer. They might be dropped into a pit and left to rot, which gives them plenty of opportunity to escape.
I'm a pretty lenient DM, as far as character survival goes. I don't like to kill off the heroes of the story, which is what the PCs are, unless there is darn good reason.

And in what world do ALL enemies use good tactics? A group of rag-tag bandits is not going to be as strategically sound as a military unit. A lone monster is as likely to run away as stand and fight.


Probably my most controversal "lesson" taught was "the heroes don't always win in my setting". Basically it was to teach them, that 90% of the time, villains in my setting aren't beat on the first try, but rather through a war of attrition when the tenth group comes.
It makes for an interesting situation when the PCs fail what is obstensibly a very important mission, as long as it happens fluidly/organically and not by railroad.

In some of my campaigns, the villain has basically used a Xanatos Gambit such that there is NO "win" situation, just a choice between two or more evils.

Example: in a M&M campaign I ran, the villain was the head of an anti-mutant league which was hunting them down and killing them off. The PCs found his hideout, figured out what he was about, and confronted him. The flip side was: he was right. The anti-mutant league had done extensive research and had the figures to prove that mutants were in fact a HUUUUUGE danger to the world at large. Many had "accidents" killing innocent bystanders, they had an extremely high rate of mental instability (including the PCs), etc etc. So the league felt they were doing the world a favour by killing them, taking out the more dangerous ones first.

The PCs had to make a choice. They could join the anti-mutant league to help save humanity, they could let the anti-mutant league keep doing its thing without interference, or they could try to stop them - but there was a contingency that if the leader was killed or imprisoned, all the data they had collected would be leaked to the public, causing anti-mutant fear and hatred to spread like wildfire.

It was an interesting final session.

[Mari01]

Fair enough. I probably wasn't clear in that no lasting harm was done. The NPC was just me tinkering with some feats behind the scene, and then revealing what happened later to show the mechanics.

[navar100]

It is not the DM's job to teach their players a lesson. Stop hating your players.

[Averis Vol]

I don't get this notion that because we throw our PC's for a loop we don't like them. My PC's have been my best friends for atleast 8 years and I dont harbor a single ounce of hate towords them, but when you ignore the obvious (a lot of my PC's come from world of Warcraft so the change is a bit much for them) bad things can happen. That being said, I don't try to kill their characters. My only death after a year and a half of dming was the rogue who wanted to switch characters, so he went toe to toe with the squad captain of the enemy army to set free his new fighter.

[Hiro Protagonest]

It is not the DM's job to teach their players a lesson. Stop hating your players.

...Did you read the thread? It's not "you did something I don't like! TPK!". It's "you just charge in without thinking. So here, take this cliffside bunker with a small garrison of kobolds with crossbows, pikes, and some alchemical items. Just regular old kobolds. A 5th level party like yourself shoulder be able to handle eight of them, right?".

[Azoth]

I am kind of laughing at how many people think that what we do is bad DMing, or that it shouldn't be done ever.

I laugh now, when old players of mine tell me how much of a cake walk even the hardest fights their new DMs throw at them are. They got used to me at every turn having enemies play to their strengths and use every tacticle advantage they could. My BBEGs were known for being heavily prepaired for the party's usual tricks and shutting those down.

I never once deliberately tried to kill my PCs, or really make their lives miserable. In the end it was the reality of their situation and not the fantasy standard of "Heros will always succeed and save the day!". Hell, paladin's have fallen in campaigns from the BBEG putting them in a no-win scenario. Sure they were allowed to atone for it later, but it still happened. Rope tricks have been dispelled, and the party falls into the middle of a patrol beatdown. Weapons/shields/wands/spell pouches/spell books have all been sundered or otherwise destroyed. I always make sure to give them a chance to get a replacement ar some point in the near future, but no competent BBEG is going to take a wiz hostage and not disable him and make him helpless.

[navar100]

If players need to learn tactics, learn to how to play the game, that's one thing. It is entirely another to put them in their place because they're "cocky". If they like to boast, let them boast. If they're proud of their characters they should be. If they defeat the BBEG on the first try, good for them.

[Verte]

It is not the DM's job to teach their players a lesson. Stop hating your players.

Yeah, it's not about hating the players. I think it's about playing NPCs appropiately to make encounters more challenging and interesting - hobgoblins would probably have an upfront, organized, tactical approach, whereas kobolds would be sneakier and would use alchemy and sorcery. Sure, ogres, orcs, and gnolls would rarely be tactical geniuses, but even they know how to use their own resources to good effect. Keeping the tactics the enemies would use in mind happens to have the side effect of forcing the players to use smarter tactics themselves, which I guess is like "teaching them a lesson".


It involved a vampire brothel. A bit of drugged wine and the conjour was pinned to the bed naked and sucked dry by the half-nymph vampire, then she walks downstairs and dominates the berserker, causing the dragon shaman to flee.

I wouldn't do this, though - it's a particular sort of scenario that I really wouldn't want to have happen to my own character in a game. I guess it just has certain specific connotations I don't want to deal with in a D&D game.

[Averis Vol]

If players need to learn tactics, learn to how to play the game, that's one thing. It is entirely another to put them in their place because they're "cocky". If they like to boast, let them boast. If they're proud of their characters they should be. If they defeat the BBEG on the first try, good for them.

who here has even remotely hinted that they were trying to take down a cocky PC a peg or two? we're just sharing stories about how we exploited some PC weaknesses as a learning exercise. they always came out alive and we weren't giggling maniacally behind our DM screens like some anime super villain.

[Morithias]

I wouldn't do this, though - it's a particular sort of scenario that I really wouldn't want to have happen to my own character in a game. I guess it just has certain specific connotations I don't want to deal with in a D&D game.

Explain please.

[Shadowknight12]

Never. I game with adults, not with children. And even if I gamed with children, I don't have any myself, so it's not my place to teach lessons to anybody.

I would walk out on a DM who ever tried to teach me a lesson. I would walk out so fast it would change local weather patterns for a decade.

[Verte]

Explain please.

Explanation in spoilers.

Basically, it seems to serve the purpose of sexually humiliating the PC. It also seems almost connotative of rape - not that I'm saying it was, but it seems similar enough that I think it could really upset some people. I don't want something like that happening to any of my characters, and I would leave a game where it did happen. If my character had been in the situation you just described, I'd be worried that such attacks against my character would escalate to that point.

Basically, in regards to the main topic, I guess I would say avoid humiliating the players. Sure, throw challenging encounters at them in order to make them consider their own tactics, and play the opposition appropiately, but don't aim to make them feel stupid or embarassed.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Never. I game with adults, not with children. And even if I gamed with children, I don't have any myself, so it's not my place to teach lessons to anybody.

I would walk out on a DM who ever tried to teach me a lesson. I would walk out so fast it would change local weather patterns for a decade.

Out of curiosity, how many encounters do you think you have either DMed or played where lateral thinking was needed to solve a problem that at first may seem difficult?

[Mari01]

Never. I game with adults, not with children. And even if I gamed with children, I don't have any myself, so it's not my place to teach lessons to anybody.

I would walk out on a DM who ever tried to teach me a lesson. I would walk out so fast it would change local weather patterns for a decade.

Is every combat you face in your games just move up to the monster, kill it, collect loot, and then move on? Your implications sound so boring.

[Shadowknight12]

Out of curiosity, how many encounters do you think you have either DMed or played where lateral thinking was needed to solve a problem that at first may seem difficult?

Needed? Never. I never make an encounter where anything is ever needed, that's just poor DMing. Every encounter I make has plenty of different ways to be solved.


Is every combat you face in your games just move up to the monster, kill it, collect loot, and then move on? Your implications sound so boring.

I have very little combat in my games; I find it somewhat boring, so I tend to only use combat when there's something interesting at stake or when the conditions surrounding the combat encounter make it unique and entertaining.

[Azoth]

That may be your perogative, but there are a fair amount of us that use combat regularly and honestly...the standard RPG format of combat is boring and impracticle.

Now, coating a room's wall in telaportation traps keyed to the opposide side of the room, and coating it in hightened magical darkness so none of the PCs can see what is going on...and throwing in a monster that has pounce, spring attack, and can see in magical darkness is beautiful. He can come at them from any angle, if a PC shoots after him they are liable to get hit from behind/side with their own projectile, anyone trying to chase him will think the room is huge. Winning this one encounter will be difficult for any party but is doable with some thinking.

[Shadowknight12]

That may be your perogative, but there are a fair amount of us that use combat regularly and honestly...the standard RPG format of combat is boring and impracticle.

Now, coating a room's wall in telaportation traps keyed to the opposide side of the room, and coating it in hightened magical darkness so none of the PCs can see what is going on...and throwing in a monster that has pounce, spring attack, and can see in magical darkness is beautiful. He can come at them from any angle, if a PC shoots after him they are liable to get hit from behind/side with their own projectile, anyone trying to chase him will think the room is huge. Winning this one encounter will be difficult for any party but is doable with some thinking.

And that's your prerogative as well! Isn't it amazing that we can all do our own thing and have personal preferences? :smallsmile:

[Averis Vol]

geez that sounds like a painful room, i wouldn't throw that at my party if they weren't optimized to a point where damage was only a minor setback. or unless they were high level, or the monster was relatively weak.

still ow, that's just frustrating.

[Azoth]

I have used that room once. Took a low CR devil, made him into a dervish, and let him loose. The party thought they were being mobbed quick and in a hurry.

Less painful was the chessboard of heal and harm spells. They were trapped. No teleports or summons, and the door wouldn't open until the undead were slain. Each 5'x5' section was an auto reseting trap, so infinite heals/harms. If you stepped into the square it activated the trap. They were fighting intelligent undead too, so movement became crucial. Though the dungeon crasher fighter had run bullrushing undead all over.

[Averis Vol]

i take it this was a high level party right?

[Acanous]

I've done this before with Orcs in a Swamp. Sending in two orcs at night, one to make some noise and approach from the front, the other circles around back, we'll get to him later.
Noisy orc makes sure to wake the party, grabs something from by the supplies, and starts running.
Party gets up, leave tents (Standard and a move). Person on watch grabs a torch, gives chase.
Orc runs into a nearby clearing. Rough terrain (Knee high water) , he drops prone and makes a hide check (Gaining cover VIA being submerged).
Party starts searching. Orcs in trees fire crossbows at the party.

Combat begins. Orcs take one full-round action to reload, then one standard to fire. Over and over again. there's about 8 of them up there, plus the one that went underwater, and the other one back at camp looting their things.

When the orcs start taking losses, they grab on to ropes, and swing down, away from the party and over a pit trap.

Lv 6 party ended up taking serious damage, running very low on healing spells and exhausting arcane spells, interrupting rest, and losing a few horses and all of their rations, as well as some gold.

There were three or four lessons taught there, never leave your stuff unguarded, don't chase fleeing enemies, and bring extra supplies.
Also, the orc that remained on the ground had Improved Sunder, and pulled a pop-up scare on the fighter. But he just got killed immediately therafter, so it didn't make a point :p

[Azoth]

That particular instance yeah...but i have used similar versions on low levels just with skeletons or zombies.

[Deophaun]

If a DM finds that his players stick to the same tried and true tactics while ignoring the same vulnerabilities over and over again, then it's his fault. The DM has structured his encounters/adventures this way, and he has rewarded the players for this strategy time and time again. By consistently trouncing his plans, it is the players who have been teaching the DM. It's a bit much for the DM to think that he is the teacher by finally learning the lesson.

The above is slightly tongue-in-cheek. In reality, there is no teacher-student relationship in D&D. Instead, there's a partnership, and the DM needs to be very careful about reacting to continued character success by tossing out the assumptions of the game without warning.

[Averis Vol]

our groups old DM was sort of a hipster. he was the one who got us all into DnD and whatever we played we we're only allowed to pull from the PhB, DMG and MMI, and as such felt he was king of DnD. so yea we were used to the same tactics over and over and over until i started DMing and playing the creatures intelligently. so i'll accept that its been both a learning experience for me and my PC's.

also i'd like to note i do NOT think i'm above my players, and that me throwing them for a loop is me trying to lord my knowledge over them. its merely the most interesting use for what i was given at the time that happened to be much more effective then i imagined.

[Deophaun]

Didn't mean to imply that you, or anyone in particular, was guilty of this. The tone of "teaching players a lesson" is just off.

And there's a Big McLargeHuge difference between changing things up from one campaign to another, and doing an about face mid-game. At the start of the campaign, the characters have a lot more freedom to grow to accommodate the game's nature than further down the road.

As an exaggerated example of what I'm against, let's say you were running a fast-and-loose dungeoncrawl, where players just pull arrows from thin air, torches are plentiful and always held in the third hand, and the characters have had the same rations in their backpack for the past three months. It's not a good idea to turn it into a survival game overnight and have the characters get sick off those old rations.

[Morithias]

also i'd like to note i do NOT think i'm above my players, and that me throwing them for a loop is me trying to lord my knowledge over them..

My two rules when making encounters.

1. You cannot metagame. If the wizard is wearing full plate and wielding a longsword somehow, the villain shouldn't put him into the expensive anti-magic cell, if he has no way to know that he has spells.

2. The dangers must make sense. Going back to the vampire brothel. It makes sense for a brothel to have wine that is drugged with aprodesiacs, having the same wine show up in the holy church where it's common to have a vow of chastity...not so much.

By combining these two you can make fair encounters. Of course you shouldn't be throwing two solar angels against a level 12 party (unless there is a VERY good in story reason for it), but by playing fair you can make good fights.

I tend not to think of the DM's resources as infinite more "Undefined". "Today I can throw up to 4 CR 13 encounters at them. Let's go with the cleric with undead, the advanced succubus, and the two bandit twins." Type thing.

[Acanous]

I think it more that the DM has resources accoarding to sense.
I mean, yeah, you should be throwing 3-4 encounters at a party per day of adventuring, unless they choose to press on. But if they do, throw another one at them.
If the party is level one, and has been summoned to Duke Benevolent McAwesome's court to recieve a quest for the crown, and their responce is "We roll initiative, we're level one, so he has to be, too"

Well, the duke is level 6, and his guards are level 3. TPK is a dish best served appropriately.

[Saintheart]

I think the most fun I've had with a situation like this was with my party in Red Hand of Doom, in the Forgotten Realms. They're in the southeast for this. Basically, the party's been bailed up for getting into a tavern fight (no, really). The party bard who has a ridiculously high Diplomacy and Bluff check pulled out a story that he was, in fact, a High Harper and on a secret mission and the local guard was interfering with the safety of the entire plane to restrict him.

What they didn't remember is that the Harpers, in this part of the Realms, per the books themselves, are not well-received, unlike the more conventional parts of Faerun. They're sort-of seen like the KGB in those areas. So while the Bluff check was incredibly high enough and did convince the guard of the "truth" that the player was a Harper, the local milling crowd was also convinced and almost started a riot trying to lynch the bard, since he's that most-hated thing in that section of Faerun: a Harper.

[Acanous]

Meanwhile, the ACTUAL harper in the area breathed a sigh of relief, as the false harper took the dogs off his trail.

[Averis Vol]

Didn't mean to imply that you, or anyone in particular, was guilty of this. The tone of "teaching players a lesson" is just off.

And there's a Big McLargeHuge difference between changing things up from one campaign to another, and doing an about face mid-game. At the start of the campaign, the characters have a lot more freedom to grow to accommodate the game's nature than further down the road.

As an exaggerated example of what I'm against, let's say you were running a fast-and-loose dungeoncrawl, where players just pull arrows from thin air, torches are plentiful and always held in the third hand, and the characters have had the same rations in their backpack for the past three months. It's not a good idea to turn it into a survival game overnight and have the characters get sick off those old rations.

well that is quite an exaggeration, don't get me wrong i understand your point but i don't think that in the spirit of of the experiences here. that's more-so in the realm of being a complete ass for completely altering the game style.

that being said...if by level ten the PC's are still using the exact same tactics at level one the random bandits may not know the guy in the breastplate is going to leap 30 feet through the air and completely leave himself open to attacks, yet turn the {whatever he hits} into beef stew, they wont know that, at the most they'll know hes a whirlwind of steel and death. whereas someone with actual influence to the story might study him intently and look for his weaknesses. so he will make himself hard to hit and potentially learn maneuvers to make his powerful attacks ineffective, then while he's open unleash his own full round of pain.

so out of game this will teach him not to shock troop his whole AC bonus, and in game he might start taking more measured strikes.

that's the kind of experience i think this thread was supposed to purvey, but yea teaching a lesson might not be the right name for it.

EDIT: and morithas, i completely agree with both of those guidelines, only time something is out of place is when it can make sense if the PC's dig deep enough.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Needed? Never. I never make an encounter where anything is ever needed, that's just poor DMing. Every encounter I make has plenty of different ways to be solved.

You know what I meant, so I won't correct myself. Don't cling to "needed" like it's the only important word there, or even one that matters.


I have very little combat in my games; I find it somewhat boring, so I tend to only use combat when there's something interesting at stake or when the conditions surrounding the combat encounter make it unique and entertaining.

How so?


And that's your prerogative as well! Isn't it amazing that we can all do our own thing and have personal preferences? :smallsmile:

Apparently one of them is bad DMing.

[Shadowknight12]

You know what I meant, so I won't correct myself. Don't cling to "needed" like it's the only important word there, or even one that matters.

Then I'm afraid I don't follow, since I don't get the question. Every encounter or problem I create has multiple ways of being solved, so obviously every single one of them can be solved by applying lateral thinking. Whether my players actually do so or take the most direct route is a different matter. Having said that, my players, once aware of my proclivities for alternate solutions, usually tend to find roundabout ways to get the job done, particularly because that allows them to preserve resources or gain some rewards.


How so?

Well, if my players tell me they're in the mood for combat (rare, but it has happened once or twice) or the plot leads the players to a combat encounter that is not particularly interesting on its own, I endeavour to add something unique (though not necessarily complex) to the encounter in order to "spice it up" and remove the awful dullness that permeates combat in every game I've yet to play.

Examples of which are natural hazards, magical effects, unforeseen third parties, traps, terrain conditions and so on. They are not meant to hinder the players (as I often play with low OP people and I cannot challenge them too much), but to give them new options and possibilities, to make the encounter more interesting and entertaining.


Apparently one of them is bad DMing.

Not all the things I would consider flaws in myself I consider flaws in others. Just because I would consider myself a bad DM if I did that doesn't mean I consider other people bad DMs if they do that.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Then I'm afraid I don't follow, since I don't get the question. Every encounter or problem I create has multiple ways of being solved, so obviously every single one of them can be solved by applying lateral thinking. Whether my players actually do so or take the most direct route is a different matter. Having said that, my players, once aware of my proclivities for alternate solutions, usually tend to find roundabout ways to get the job done, particularly because that allows them to preserve resources or gain some rewards.

I meant, "have you ever created a situation for your players where, by product of design or even just by circumstance, lateral thinking and problem-solving are encouraged to make a challenging encounter easier?", or really, just replaced "needed" with "encouraged" or any of dozens of softer synonyms that I could have used, and might have if I weren't posting from a phone while navigating through an unfamiliar town on foot.

Anyway, the answer is yes, by all rights, according to the above paragraph, in which case, congratulations, you are teaching your players (lessons) every time. Learning in a classroom, or at least a good one, doesn't happen in a "stand and deliver" sense, where the students sit down, shut up and listen, and later they can go; it involves creating situations where students can either apply past knowledge to a new situation (assimilate) or adapt their developmental schema to meet the demands of the new situation (accommodate) in order to solve a problem, which is first modeled or demonstrated by the teacher. Students are given the tools to solve the problem at their own pace in their own way.*

Now, let me blow your mind here:

You, the DM, are the teacher.
The players are the students.
Every encounter, be it combat, trap, puzzle, social, or role play, is a lesson (whether you want to admit it or not), unless it is such that it does not produce anything new, interesting, or otherwise experiential to the players (a dungeon crawler where every fight is against the same three Orcs or two Zombies, each of whom acts identically to the last, or a social environment where story "happens" around the players, or some other non-interactive situation).
You, as the DM, model these new situations by providing them a problem to puzzle over, usually by immersing them in the mindset in which the puzzle is real (by role playing). You also provide the resources (by actively involving them in the environment) or opportunities (by passively involving them in the environment, or simply allowing them to be) necessary to solve the problem in multiple ways. (An example of a problem could be an enemy with a reach weapon, such as a spear, and Improved Trip who controls space with AoOs, and the resources could include a means to box them in so that their reach is ineffective, or something you or I could come up with better if given time for forethought.)
The players respond to new situations either by reacting in a way that they have before (responding to a new problem with old methods), or reacting in a new way (responding to a new problem with new methods).
In the first case, the players are assimilating knowledge: they learn if their old methods solve this new problem (a social-heavy campaign where an enemy attacks over a misunderstanding, who is or is not persuaded to stand down); if the old method succeeds, then the players learn for future encounters of this type, but if it fails, players learn that alternative methods may be necessary.
In the case of the latter, players are accommodating their knowledge: they learn if their new methods solve this problem (a clumsy giant capable of incredible feats of strength and better equipped to win in a brute-force encounter, who is or is not tripped with a rope trap and tied down while dazed); if the new method solves the problem, then they've learned a successful new problem-solving method, but if not, they've learned what doesn't work by virtue of elimination.

All DMs, or at least DMs who provide experiential gameplay for their players, are also teachers, and they are teaching their players lessons. About gameplay, strategy, mechanics, interactions within the world, the world's environment, history, story development--all are valid lessons, and you are teaching them.

*Source: I'm a year away from accreditation myself, but if you'd like, I'm sitting next to a half-dozen textbooks as we speak. Off-hand, I referenced Piagetian theories on learning and development directly, and Bloom's Taxonomy indirectly (by demonstrating how we as DMs move players through the various levels of learning). :smallsmile:


Examples of which are natural hazards, magical effects, unforeseen third parties, traps, terrain conditions and so on. They are not meant to hinder the players (as I often play with low OP people and I cannot challenge them too much), but to give them new options and possibilities, to make the encounter more interesting and entertaining.

Congratulations! You're a teacher! :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:



If a DM finds that his players stick to the same tried and true tactics while ignoring the same vulnerabilities over and over again, then it's his fault. The DM has structured his encounters/adventures this way, and he has rewarded the players for this strategy time and time again. By consistently trouncing his plans, it is the players who have been teaching the DM. It's a bit much for the DM to think that he is the teacher by finally learning the lesson.

The above is slightly tongue-in-cheek. In reality, there is no teacher-student relationship in D&D. Instead, there's a partnership, and the DM needs to be very careful about reacting to continued character success by tossing out the assumptions of the game without warning.

I agree with the first paragraph, but disagree with the second (obviously; see above). Even discounting combat entirely, in most every game you, the DM, are teaching your players about the world they are interacting with by constructing learning experiences in the form of in-world interaction, plot exposition, etc. The players in turn then learn how to use these experiences to form assumptions about how the world works around them (which is why it is important not to throw out assumptions of the game without warning, and also exactly how DMing is like teaching and being a PC is a learning process). You can say that this is not true because the DM and players are equal, but in my opinion the same is true of an elementary class (when done right). :smallsmile:

[Shadowknight12]

Well, I sure did not expect that. I was definitely expecting this thread to stick to the colloquial definition of "teaching a lesson" and not with the one that covers every single thing you do in your life. Yeah, if we use that definition of "teaching" and "learning," we are all constantly teaching and learning. I am learning from my players too, when they invent new strategies that force me to adapt in order to keep challenging them. They are teaching me flexibility, quickness of thought, a fluent grasp of the rules and the ability to think on my feet and improvise. They can also teach me to roleplay better, if they have a superior skill than me. They can also teach me how to be a better DM by giving me feedback on what I do. They can teach me things that are utterly unrelated, like rules I had misunderstood or tricks that save time during the session or make PbP run smoother.

And as you can see, all of this also applies to all sustained social relationships (and also, in some cases, it doesn't need to be sustained: a single, brief encounter can teach you quite a bit). It also applies without the necessity of another human; we can learn from nature (which is what science chiefly does), our past, philosophies, books, personal experiences and so on.

Perhaps it would be best not to use the definitions of teaching and learning that ensures the maximum possible amount of confusion in the topic. :smallsmile:

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, I sure did not expect that. I was definitely expecting this thread to stick to the colloquial definition of "teaching a lesson" and not with the one that covers every single thing you do in your life.

Only it's clear that the OP did not mean it that way, nor did the people providing examples, and that the people sticking to the colloquial definition had clearly come and posted out of scorn as a knee-jerk reaction to the title. Anybody who had read the OP and gathered the tone of the thread knew it wasn't about one-upsmanship or about "teaching the players a lesson", but was instead about teaching, as in my field of expertise, otherwise I would have posted scorn.


Yeah, if we use that definition of "teaching" and "learning," we are all constantly teaching and learning.

Well, I would have continued to use the narrower definition set forth by the OP and carried throughout all of my previous posts, but when your splitting fine hairs on the preciseness of terms turned out to be genuine confusion instead of mockery, it became obvious that I had to broaden the scope before narrowing it down.

The original topic of this thread was regarding creating meaningful learning experiences, as opposed to just learning experiences in general. A meaningful learning experience is one where a new piece of information was introduced that can then be applied to future problems or experiences, and defines a much narrower subset of "all the things that can happen ever". It is particularly distinct from routine learning experiences or rote learning experiences, where people learn how to complete a single repetitive task through practice or routine, without ever learning to apply new knowledge or methods in their practice. In the D&D world, this would be your dungeon-crawling slog through hordes of identical groups of three Orcs; the encounters can easily be won through routine, nothing new is learned, and only memorization skills (the lowest form of learning on Bloom's Taxonomy) are ever exercised; understanding of one's environment and situation is never expressed, nor does it need to be.

Now, to borrow an example from the perspective of a low-op game:
Assume there exists a Halfling Rogue who is in all ways identical to Belkar, except that he is a Rogue. The player of the Rogue character is having trouble getting into flanking position with the Fighter (the only other melee in the group) and, as a result, is not getting their Sneak Attack damage off, and is starting to feel frustrated.

This is addressed in one of two ways by different DMs:
1) Enemies become easier to flank. They just seem to "fall" between the Fighter and Rogue enough for the Rogue to feel relevant. The Rogue player learns that getting into flanking position isn't that hard after all, his old method prevails, and the player keeps doing the same thing over and over. Nothing new is gained here; the DM is teaching routine, and is never progressing beyond memorization of old tactics.
2) Somewhere down the line (in the near or far future), the party happens upon an enemy (alone or as part of a group) who is a Rogue, only this Rogue fights a little smarter. Something about the Rogue's tactics makes Sneak Attack easier: maybe when the Rogue needs to get into flanking position, they make a Tumble check to avoid the attack of opportunity from the Rogue player before striking; or maybe the Rogue used Improved Feint, feinted as a move action, and then got the Sneak Attack damage without flanking; or maybe the enemy Rogue used Quick Draw and either Flick of the Wrist or Hidden Blade to get their Sneak Attack damage more easily (without requiring flanking). Or maybe the party is geared toward a more high-op game, and the Rogue is simply falling behind, in which case you introduce the Rogue as Invisible... The point is, a new method presents itself as an option that the Rogue player can use when his old methods don't cut it (like when the Fighter is occupied with something else and he can't find a flanking buddy), which he can then try to apply in future situations. This is a meaningful learning experience because it enhances understanding of Rogue tactics and how to get Sneak Attack off, and the player can choose to apply these new methods to new situations themselves (further improving their learning experience).

The difference between the two is qualitative: with the first, the Rogue learns nothing new, the player doesn't get any better, and stagnates as a result; with the second, the Rogue player learns of an alternative means of gaining Sneak Attack (and maybe learns of the fact that alternate methods even exist), can test their validity for themselves (with limitations, of course), and new learning can be enforced.

As far as I and most others can tell, this thread is about teaching players meaningful learning experiences, and not about "teaching a lesson", which has very ugly connotations that I'd like to assume the best of the OP and say he didn't mean.


I am learning from my players too, when they invent new strategies that force me to adapt in order to keep challenging them. They are teaching me flexibility, quickness of thought, a fluent grasp of the rules and the ability to think on my feet and improvise. They can also teach me to roleplay better, if they have a superior skill than me. They can also teach me how to be a better DM by giving me feedback on what I do. They can teach me things that are utterly unrelated, like rules I had misunderstood or tricks that save time during the session or make PbP run smoother.

All of this is true!


And as you can see, all of this also applies to all sustained social relationships (and also, in some cases, it doesn't need to be sustained: a single, brief encounter can teach you quite a bit). It also applies without the necessity of another human; we can learn from nature (which is what science chiefly does), our past, philosophies, books, personal experiences and so on.

With all due respect to all your sustained social relationships--most of them probably aren't meaningful all the time. I'm willing to make the altogether safe bet that most of the time, most of your relationships reinforce old habits or beliefs, or lend themselves to routine learning.


Perhaps it would be best not to use the definitions of teaching and learning that ensures the maximum possible amount of confusion in the topic. :smallsmile:

OK! Let's use the one that the OP intended (which I've narrowed us back down to, effectively taking us back to Square 1).

[One Step Two]

My tale is a mixture of a learning experience.


In my Faerun based campaign I have nine players of different stripes.
A Fighter, Favoured Soul, Paladin, Barbarian, Scout/Ranger, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Rogue. The main two that are the focus of this story is the Paladin, and the Cleric.
Now, my Cleric (An Aasimar from Mulholrand who worships Horus-Re) is lauded as the best cleric player that has ever been encountered in any gaming group, he knows the class well, he plays an excellent healer, being able to present efficent spell selection, mixing utility spells and combat buffs, with readiness to convert them to healing to best effect, a good optimiser, and he knows how to make himself fade into the background so he doesn't draw undue attention. This final aspect is least desirable, simply because it means he doesn't get to show off how good a roleplayer he really is.

On the other side of the coin, we have my Paladin, the player is vocal, in your face, a so-so optimiser, but hardly the best. He roleplays very well, but he plays a little too on the Meta side of things, drawing conclusions with whatever tools were available to him to try and circumvent any challenges. His chief weapon? Detect Evil. He plays his paladin of the firebrand nature, if it's evil, it's a target, not question, no talking, it has to go. I tried to remind him that While he was a Paladin, his oaths were different to a normal Paladin, as he worshipped Mystra, and while he certainly was trained to root out evil, and defeat it, his Oaths were to the protection of Magic, and to stop those who would pervert the Weave.

Initially I was happy to have it, made for an interesting espionage hunter in a war-torn area, hunting down those who were profiteering, or using the confusion of war to take vengance on others.
One thing I wanted to do with the campaign however was make it decidedly dicey, diplomatically, no-one side in the war was truly evil, just nobles using the loss of their main ruling caste as a chance to expand their holdings, or settle grudges. Lots of Chaotic and Neutral acts for the most part, evil scattered in between.

From the very moment he got the class feature, he more or less out-right stated that he was using Detect on every single person they met, no matter who they were, or what capacity they were in. Everyone. No exceptions, even the preists of his own church.
This had some actually positive moments on the campaign, his liberal use of detect evil found an Evil Scout captain, whom he challenge to single combat and slaughtered, revealing them to be an Evil Shapeshifter, known as a Fey'ri, causing widespread panic when the rest of the scouts found out, and ground pretty much the civil war to a halt as every noble house looked inwardly to try and figure out if they have their own issues with infritrators.

This lead to a problem of a couple of the Fey'ri whom I was using as indepth characters, who were leaking information about the movements about other Fey'ri, were also seeking the paladin trying to make amends and seek atonement. The problem was, the moment the Paladin met them, they were evil he attacked, and they were forced to flee, without a single word being spoken, beyond "Halt ser Knight, we wish to speak."

What came as a surprising outcome of that encounter, is when my Cleric spoke up to actually ask, "Can I roll sense motive to see if I can gather what they wanted?" just before the attack came to be. Of course, the call for initative drove that into the ground. However, I gave the cleric a chance to roll the dice after they had fled to still gague them and their intent, and of course, having a good wisdom skill meant he rolled pretty damned high. I revealed that the pair appeared to have a mix of fear, trepidation and a little hope in them, giving him food for thought.

The campaign progresses, and they are able to learn about the chief agent provocateur. The lead Fey'ri was leading an Elf warcamp, who were possibly his dupes. Despite the fact that intel said the Camp had over one hundred and fifty Elven warriors within, the Paladin decided he was going to march the party onwards to root out Evil regardless.

So during their approach to the camp, I had those on watch make some listen checks into the night to reveal that there was a skirmish of some sort going on, they decided it was in their best interest not to get involved at that moment. Come morning, they find a Half-dozen elven warriors surveying the battlefield. The paladin giving them his usual cursory glance of Evil Detection, revealed that it was okay to talk to them, where he proceeded to use his title to bash the Elf warriors over the head socially, and demand a meeting with their captain, while completely ignoring the fact that the Elves had just been attacked by one of the Human noble houses, making them all completely uneasy. The Cleric however did notice, and attempted a little hasty diplomacy of his own, quickly explaining that they have been tasked by the council regent to help track down the Fey'ri
The Elves were dubious with the request to lead them to the camp, but they were outnumbered by the party, and the Cleric made a decent point, so they led them back.

At the watchpost of the camp, everything was tense, the losses from the last nights skirmish, in addition to the camp leader leading fifty of the men away to harass the attackers, meant they were stretched thin in their defence of their large camp, not to mention their protective duty of the camp followers. The lieutenant in charge of the post asked that the Paladin bring only two others with him into the camp at the very most in the interest of peaceful discussion.

Now, out of game began a fierce discussion of who was left in the camp. No-one else they had detected was evil, but they were certain the Fey'ri was there, and going in with just three of them would be suicide. The Figher of the party declared everyone should get into the portable hole he had, as they had recently aquired a bottle of air, which would allow them to be carried inside by the Paladin. The Sorcerer of the party declared he was going to Fly invisibly over the camp.

At that point I reminded the Paladin, that using chaotic means wasn't in his best interests, I wasn't going to make him fall over it, just reminding him it was a bad precedent to be setting. He of course brushed it off saying that "Fighting Evil required clever tactics." I argued a little with him over the semantics, but eventually let it slide for the moment.

The Paladin elected to take the Cleric and the Favoured Soul with him into the camp, and everyone else in the portable hole, which was folded in his pocket. They encoutered the highest ranking noble in the camp, a recurring character of ill reputation, but not evil by any means, and had a breif, if terse reunion, after which they were directed to the camp's Second Commander in the main tent, as their Captain Commander was leading the Skirmish.

No Sooner had they Paladin entered the tent, has said he was detecting evil, and I informed him that the second detected as moderately evil. Without a word, the Paladin drops the portable onto the table and opens it. I do try and protest the action, again, chaotic means, but the call for initiative was made.

The Second, was a bit of a deliberative power play on my part addmittedly, designed to be a Fighter, with a pole-arm, using improved trip, and his WBL spent on potions of Enlarge Person. His first action was to call for his guards, and drink a potion on the defensive, with a table in between him and the three party members not in the portable hole, he did so unassailed. He spent the rest of his turn putting his combat reflexes to work, using his attack of oppertunity and the Knock-down feat, he was able to effectively hamper the majority of the party, the main of which was knocking-down the Fighter as he emerged from the hole, stopping anyone else getting out for the round. The Cleric, Paladin, and Favoured Soul all buffed themselves up, in preperation for the assault that would come.
The only significant action to occur in the next round however, was the sorcerer fire-balling a half-dozen or so on-coming guards, as the Second cut open a hole in the back of the tent, and falling back. The party followed, and soon found themselves being surrounded by the Elven warcamp, and arrows knocked and aimed. Squarely at them, with the Second telling them to stand down.

What ensued after was a fierce debate, that the Paladin had decided because this guy was evil, he had no reason to accept the arrest and keep fighting. I, not to mention the rest of the party, had to stress that a human attacking their commander in the middle of a war after a skirmish wouldn't endear any of the camp warriors to him, no matter what he claimed as liberation.

Out of character, I was being chastised as a GM, because they said I wasn't portraying an Evil character properly if all of his men, who weren't evil, were loyal to him in anyway, to which I responded, "No I guess not."
It was at this point that my cleric got wind something was off, and attempted to probe a few questions about the Fey'ri, and how the camp had dealt with them. The second began to explain their commander had lead the clensing himself, removing three. A sense motive roll told that he was being honest, if a little unsure. The diplomancy on the part of the Cleric was quite well done, now that he was finding his feet with his revelations, and made a persuasive argument that the camp commander might be a Fey'ri himself, sacraficing his minions to hide his own tracks. The Second was even willing to go so far as to show the party where the commander had gone for the counter-offensive, providing they swore not to injure any of the other Elves under the commander should it turn out that he is indeed Fey'ri.

The Paladin however was having none of this, the displeasure of me telling him the Second commander was within his authority to arrest him and the rest of the party as attempted assassins, decided to formally challenge the Second to a duel. I told him he was under no obligation to accept, because he had the party well cornered. Also, I had designed the Second to challenge the entire party as a CR appropriate encounter if it led to blows proper, so letting them come to a one-on-one fight wouldn't have been a good idea. The Paladin's player was unmoveable on the subject despite anyone protests, party or my own, so I relented.

It was short. They began at twenty-feet apart, as soon as the Paladin began buffing himself, I told him plainly that the Second would use another Enlarge person potion. The Paladin charged, suffered an attack of oppertunity, and got knocked-down. On the proceeding turn, the Second full-attacked non-lethally and knocked the Paladin out cold, which he then remarked to the party and told them to get the Paladin out of his camp.

The Cleric, well and truly dubious of everything that was going on, declared he wanted to use the detect evil spell himself, and after three rounds of intense study, and a good spot check, revealed a brooch the Second was wearing, a gift he said he recieved from the Captain Commanders sister as a good luck token, which was making him detect evil.

The rest of the party was dumbstruck by the enormity. The Paladin was for a few moments as well, before he resorted to complaining about being unfairly tricked to which the cleric responded, "We, or you, specifically, have been using the same tactic over and over again, it stands to reason that they would adapt, and throw something in our way to confuse and delay us, or possibly cause you to fall."


It was a good moment.



TL;DR: Showing a paladin, that just cause it detects as evil, doesn't mean he has every right to attack it in a tactically dire situation.
And showing a Player, that he can be more active because he has skills to contribute that are as valuable as anyone elses beyond being a heal-battery.

[meto30]

My tale is a mixture of a learning experience.
TL;DR: Showing a paladin, that just cause it detects as evil, doesn't mean he has every right to attack it in a tactically dire situation.
And showing a Player, that he can be more active because he has skills to contribute that are as valuable as anyone elses beyond being a heal-battery.

Ah, a fellow FR player! Nice to meet you.

I believe you were doing your job correctly in having non-evil soldiers being loyal to an evil commander, as IMHO it is fully possible to disagree on moral or political grounds and yet be bonded in loyalty. I quote World War 2 as a clear example.

It just might have to do with my way of interpreting dogmas in FR, but it seems your paladin player would fit better with the church of Helm... or Tyr? Mystra's paladins are known for their moral ambiguity when it comes to non-magic-related concerns, if my Realmslore serves me correctly. Perhaps it's time he switched patrons, but seeing as I know little of your campaign other than what you've written here, I'll not say anything further.

Would it trouble you to tell me more of your campaign? Via PM, or maybe e-mail? As another DM who is running an FR campaign that also prominently features the paladins of the Lady of Mysteries and the Daemonfey, I would love to hear about what other DMs are doing in running the Realms. Perhaps we can exchange opinions about the Spellplague! Or maybe not. I hear that topic can be quite the hornet's nest...

[Mari01]

My tale is a mixture of a learning experience.


In my Faerun based campaign I have nine players of different stripes.
A Fighter, Favoured Soul, Paladin, Barbarian, Scout/Ranger, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Rogue. The main two that are the focus of this story is the Paladin, and the Cleric.
Now, my Cleric (An Aasimar from Mulholrand who worships Horus-Re) is lauded as the best cleric player that has ever been encountered in any gaming group, he knows the class well, he plays an excellent healer, being able to present efficent spell selection, mixing utility spells and combat buffs, with readiness to convert them to healing to best effect, a good optimiser, and he knows how to make himself fade into the background so he doesn't draw undue attention. This final aspect is least desirable, simply because it means he doesn't get to show off how good a roleplayer he really is.

On the other side of the coin, we have my Paladin, the player is vocal, in your face, a so-so optimiser, but hardly the best. He roleplays very well, but he plays a little too on the Meta side of things, drawing conclusions with whatever tools were available to him to try and circumvent any challenges. His chief weapon? Detect Evil. He plays his paladin of the firebrand nature, if it's evil, it's a target, not question, no talking, it has to go. I tried to remind him that While he was a Paladin, his oaths were different to a normal Paladin, as he worshipped Mystra, and while he certainly was trained to root out evil, and defeat it, his Oaths were to the protection of Magic, and to stop those who would pervert the Weave.

Initially I was happy to have it, made for an interesting espionage hunter in a war-torn area, hunting down those who were profiteering, or using the confusion of war to take vengance on others.
One thing I wanted to do with the campaign however was make it decidedly dicey, diplomatically, no-one side in the war was truly evil, just nobles using the loss of their main ruling caste as a chance to expand their holdings, or settle grudges. Lots of Chaotic and Neutral acts for the most part, evil scattered in between.

From the very moment he got the class feature, he more or less out-right stated that he was using Detect on every single person they met, no matter who they were, or what capacity they were in. Everyone. No exceptions, even the preists of his own church.
This had some actually positive moments on the campaign, his liberal use of detect evil found an Evil Scout captain, whom he challenge to single combat and slaughtered, revealing them to be an Evil Shapeshifter, known as a Fey'ri, causing widespread panic when the rest of the scouts found out, and ground pretty much the civil war to a halt as every noble house looked inwardly to try and figure out if they have their own issues with infritrators.

This lead to a problem of a couple of the Fey'ri whom I was using as indepth characters, who were leaking information about the movements about other Fey'ri, were also seeking the paladin trying to make amends and seek atonement. The problem was, the moment the Paladin met them, they were evil he attacked, and they were forced to flee, without a single word being spoken, beyond "Halt ser Knight, we wish to speak."

What came as a surprising outcome of that encounter, is when my Cleric spoke up to actually ask, "Can I roll sense motive to see if I can gather what they wanted?" just before the attack came to be. Of course, the call for initative drove that into the ground. However, I gave the cleric a chance to roll the dice after they had fled to still gague them and their intent, and of course, having a good wisdom skill meant he rolled pretty damned high. I revealed that the pair appeared to have a mix of fear, trepidation and a little hope in them, giving him food for thought.

The campaign progresses, and they are able to learn about the chief agent provocateur. The lead Fey'ri was leading an Elf warcamp, who were possibly his dupes. Despite the fact that intel said the Camp had over one hundred and fifty Elven warriors within, the Paladin decided he was going to march the party onwards to root out Evil regardless.

So during their approach to the camp, I had those on watch make some listen checks into the night to reveal that there was a skirmish of some sort going on, they decided it was in their best interest not to get involved at that moment. Come morning, they find a Half-dozen elven warriors surveying the battlefield. The paladin giving them his usual cursory glance of Evil Detection, revealed that it was okay to talk to them, where he proceeded to use his title to bash the Elf warriors over the head socially, and demand a meeting with their captain, while completely ignoring the fact that the Elves had just been attacked by one of the Human noble houses, making them all completely uneasy. The Cleric however did notice, and attempted a little hasty diplomacy of his own, quickly explaining that they have been tasked by the council regent to help track down the Fey'ri
The Elves were dubious with the request to lead them to the camp, but they were outnumbered by the party, and the Cleric made a decent point, so they led them back.

At the watchpost of the camp, everything was tense, the losses from the last nights skirmish, in addition to the camp leader leading fifty of the men away to harass the attackers, meant they were stretched thin in their defence of their large camp, not to mention their protective duty of the camp followers. The lieutenant in charge of the post asked that the Paladin bring only two others with him into the camp at the very most in the interest of peaceful discussion.

Now, out of game began a fierce discussion of who was left in the camp. No-one else they had detected was evil, but they were certain the Fey'ri was there, and going in with just three of them would be suicide. The Figher of the party declared everyone should get into the portable hole he had, as they had recently aquired a bottle of air, which would allow them to be carried inside by the Paladin. The Sorcerer of the party declared he was going to Fly invisibly over the camp.

At that point I reminded the Paladin, that using chaotic means wasn't in his best interests, I wasn't going to make him fall over it, just reminding him it was a bad precedent to be setting. He of course brushed it off saying that "Fighting Evil required clever tactics." I argued a little with him over the semantics, but eventually let it slide for the moment.

The Paladin elected to take the Cleric and the Favoured Soul with him into the camp, and everyone else in the portable hole, which was folded in his pocket. They encoutered the highest ranking noble in the camp, a recurring character of ill reputation, but not evil by any means, and had a breif, if terse reunion, after which they were directed to the camp's Second Commander in the main tent, as their Captain Commander was leading the Skirmish.

No Sooner had they Paladin entered the tent, has said he was detecting evil, and I informed him that the second detected as moderately evil. Without a word, the Paladin drops the portable onto the table and opens it. I do try and protest the action, again, chaotic means, but the call for initiative was made.

The Second, was a bit of a deliberative power play on my part addmittedly, designed to be a Fighter, with a pole-arm, using improved trip, and his WBL spent on potions of Enlarge Person. His first action was to call for his guards, and drink a potion on the defensive, with a table in between him and the three party members not in the portable hole, he did so unassailed. He spent the rest of his turn putting his combat reflexes to work, using his attack of oppertunity and the Knock-down feat, he was able to effectively hamper the majority of the party, the main of which was knocking-down the Fighter as he emerged from the hole, stopping anyone else getting out for the round. The Cleric, Paladin, and Favoured Soul all buffed themselves up, in preperation for the assault that would come.
The only significant action to occur in the next round however, was the sorcerer fire-balling a half-dozen or so on-coming guards, as the Second cut open a hole in the back of the tent, and falling back. The party followed, and soon found themselves being surrounded by the Elven warcamp, and arrows knocked and aimed. Squarely at them, with the Second telling them to stand down.

What ensued after was a fierce debate, that the Paladin had decided because this guy was evil, he had no reason to accept the arrest and keep fighting. I, not to mention the rest of the party, had to stress that a human attacking their commander in the middle of a war after a skirmish wouldn't endear any of the camp warriors to him, no matter what he claimed as liberation.

Out of character, I was being chastised as a GM, because they said I wasn't portraying an Evil character properly if all of his men, who weren't evil, were loyal to him in anyway, to which I responded, "No I guess not."
It was at this point that my cleric got wind something was off, and attempted to probe a few questions about the Fey'ri, and how the camp had dealt with them. The second began to explain their commander had lead the clensing himself, removing three. A sense motive roll told that he was being honest, if a little unsure. The diplomancy on the part of the Cleric was quite well done, now that he was finding his feet with his revelations, and made a persuasive argument that the camp commander might be a Fey'ri himself, sacraficing his minions to hide his own tracks. The Second was even willing to go so far as to show the party where the commander had gone for the counter-offensive, providing they swore not to injure any of the other Elves under the commander should it turn out that he is indeed Fey'ri.

The Paladin however was having none of this, the displeasure of me telling him the Second commander was within his authority to arrest him and the rest of the party as attempted assassins, decided to formally challenge the Second to a duel. I told him he was under no obligation to accept, because he had the party well cornered. Also, I had designed the Second to challenge the entire party as a CR appropriate encounter if it led to blows proper, so letting them come to a one-on-one fight wouldn't have been a good idea. The Paladin's player was unmoveable on the subject despite anyone protests, party or my own, so I relented.

It was short. They began at twenty-feet apart, as soon as the Paladin began buffing himself, I told him plainly that the Second would use another Enlarge person potion. The Paladin charged, suffered an attack of oppertunity, and got knocked-down. On the proceeding turn, the Second full-attacked non-lethally and knocked the Paladin out cold, which he then remarked to the party and told them to get the Paladin out of his camp.

The Cleric, well and truly dubious of everything that was going on, declared he wanted to use the detect evil spell himself, and after three rounds of intense study, and a good spot check, revealed a brooch the Second was wearing, a gift he said he recieved from the Captain Commanders sister as a good luck token, which was making him detect evil.

The rest of the party was dumbstruck by the enormity. The Paladin was for a few moments as well, before he resorted to complaining about being unfairly tricked to which the cleric responded, "We, or you, specifically, have been using the same tactic over and over again, it stands to reason that they would adapt, and throw something in our way to confuse and delay us, or possibly cause you to fall."


It was a good moment.



TL;DR: Showing a paladin, that just cause it detects as evil, doesn't mean he has every right to attack it in a tactically dire situation.
And showing a Player, that he can be more active because he has skills to contribute that are as valuable as anyone elses beyond being a heal-battery.

This is gold. This is why I even attempted to be a DM in the first place. I want to push my own creativity so that I can enhance everyone's game.

[Deophaun]

that being said...if by level ten the PC's are still using the exact same tactics at level one the random bandits may not know the guy in the breastplate is going to leap 30 feet through the air and completely leave himself open to attacks, yet turn the {whatever he hits} into beef stew, they wont know that, at the most they'll know hes a whirlwind of steel and death. whereas someone with actual influence to the story might study him intently and look for his weaknesses. so he will make himself hard to hit and potentially learn maneuvers to make his powerful attacks ineffective, then while he's open unleash his own full round of pain.
Actually, this also falls into my example. By level 10, if the player has been using the exact same tactic and has run into no one who has used any tactics that could mitigate it (and there are quite a few), then the DM throwing people expressly designed to counter it without warning is now changing the assumptions of the game. Before, the DM encouraged players to assume that the enemies had no knowledge of them or even basic tactical planning. Suddenly, there's an about face and the player has no means of knowing he's playing a different game as surely as if rules for hunger and food spoilage were introduced.

When I'm a player, I will often start campaigns holding back some of my tricks. I will mark down a contingency spell programmed for when one of my opponents recognizes a gap in my tactics, or keep a maneuver in my back pocket that rewrites the assumptions of what my character can do. In one instance, I used bluff and slight of hand to hide my Fiery Burst reserve feat as a property of the fighter's sword (he'd swing and a ball of fire would appear where his sword hit). Made for some fun when a wizard kept trying to dispel it. In another, I was a warblade who had taken martial study and grabbed a teleport from the Shadow Hand discipline. Never used it until the BBEG who was scrying us the whole time finally found a way to capture the party. It threw the entire adventure open because I pulled a power from left field. A great payoff for never using the ability for two levels after I picked it up.

But, in that game, it was made clear that we were being watched. In many other games, it was clear that we weren't, so I stopped holding my character back for a payoff that would never come. If, at level 10, the DM decided to "teach me a lesson" that enemies do pay attention in those games, I'd feel cheated.

[Averis Vol]

Then we might have to agree to disagree, because I think that's perfectly justified for a dm to pull on me, and from then on I'll be more cautious.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Now, my Cleric (An Aasimar from Mulholrand who worships Horus-Re)
I believe it's Re-Horukhtay.

But I've been wondering about the hybrid god. Can anyone tell me what myth Horus got the sun god's power?

[One Step Two]

I believe it's Re-Horukhtay.

But I've been wondering about the hybrid god. Can anyone tell me what myth Horus got the sun god's power?

Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting D&D 3rd Edition Faiths and Pantheons page 143, Horus-Re is the Sun God of Mulhorand.
I don't know if this was different in any others, but that's our current source Material.

[meto30]

I believe it's Re-Horukhtay.
But I've been wondering about the hybrid god. Can anyone tell me what myth Horus got the sun god's power?

If you're refering to the Egyptian god, then I believe there is little I can tell you, but if it is the FR sun deity Horus-Re, the Pharaoh of the gods of Mulhorand, then I believe you will find your answers here (http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Horus-Re). He actually is named Horus-Re in FR.

[Dairuga]

My tale is a mixture of a learning experience.


TL;DR: Showing a paladin, that just cause it detects as evil, doesn't mean he has every right to attack it in a tactically dire situation.
And showing a Player, that he can be more active because he has skills to contribute that are as valuable as anyone elses beyond being a heal-battery.

This... Is a truly grand post.
Such a wonderful tale indeed. If only my own group had such boisterous, brash people like this, hah. It is quite ingenious, that the brooch showed off as evil, letting the Paladin go astray. To be entirely honest, the guy sounds as if he deserves it aplenty.

Yes, a Paladin is quite To-the-point with evil. Slay things that are evil, and bring them down to justice, etc, etc. But really, not giving them a single chance to speak? That -is- rather boorish. A paladin is Lawful Good, meaning that they should adhere to Lawful means. That means taking surrendering enemies in to jail if they plead surrender, and so on and so forth. Law requires justice, and justice requires mercy.

The Book of Exalted deeds have a -lot- of information that you could potentially use to smack the Paladin up his head. If he straight out goes on and kills an evil character that has not done anything bad, pleads Mercy, without giving him a chance to speak and explain, it might very well be registered as a downright Evil act (if not very chaotic), and may cause the paladin to fall.

Killing evil might be good, but it is in no way lawful unless done in an orderly manner. Paladins sometimes tend to forget that being Lawful is just as important to a good Paladin as being "Good", is.

On that point, however, when people chastise you out of the game; Telling you that you are playing evil wrong, or that other people would -never- follow evil leaders when they were not evil themselves... I would not say that saying "I guess not" is a good way of handling the situation. If you say that "You guess not", it will seed in your players that you might not know what is going on; making them doubtful. The better way, in my opinion, would be to say "Wait and see", or simply "They are acting appropriately", and leave it at that. Because they were, and the players merely did not have all the information. THe players cannot act as if they know everything, and know how things are supposed to be, without having all the information.

Besides, on that point; how would the men know that their leader is supposedly "Evil"? Not everyone have access to clerics, paladins and detect evil (Or possibly they do, given the setting.), and so it would make sense that people would follow a commander on sheer virtue of him being a good commander. If A stranger, or a single paladin comes up and claims that their leader is an evil person, then that would be a stranger's word against their esteemed leader. Which would, in most cases, not be much of a hard decision at all. So it does make sense that even unwitting allies would stick to an evil leader, if he gets the job done.

That is my two coppers, anyhow.
Great job, still! That was a splendid twist, again.

[Crasical]

...Did you read the thread? It's not "you did something I don't like! TPK!". It's "you just charge in without thinking. So here, take this cliffside bunker with a small garrison of kobolds with crossbows, pikes, and some alchemical items. Just regular old kobolds. A 5th level party like yourself shoulder be able to handle eight of them, right?".

As an aside, I really don't 'get' the Tucker's Kobolds scenario. Unless you're overburdening the kobold lair with wealth and magic far beyond what creatures of their level should have, the players are going to have enough avatar strength to just power through and win anyway, even if played less than intelligently.

[meto30]

Yes, a Paladin is quite To-the-point with evil. Slay things that are evil, and bring them down to justice, etc, etc. But really, not giving them a single chance to speak? That -is- rather boorish. A paladin is Lawful Good, meaning that they should adhere to Lawful means. That means taking surrendering enemies in to jail if they plead surrender, and so on and so forth. Law requires justice, and justice requires mercy.


Well, it is possible (if one stretches one's imagination) the paladin was refering to some other dogma in FR... because in the Realms' system of religions, many deities have different definitions of what constitutes 'lawful' or 'good' behavior, and thus the paladins tend to have widely differing moral codes that can and actually does lead to friction between major churches. One good example would be the difference between Helm and Tyr. Or Ilmater and Tyr, to cite a more morally ambiguous difference.

Besides, seeing as the current(3.5e) incarnation of Mystra once got reprimanded for being too 'judgemental', that is, favoring good over evil, her paladins should have more open-minded views on what deserves punishment. Or maybe not. Mystra rarely had that much control on her own church after that incident with Kelemvor...

[One Step Two]

To be fair, I did omit a few small details about this particular paladins want to swing first, ask questions later. In the given incident, the pair of Fey'ri he encountered and decided to attack first before exchanging words were antagonists he had encountered before. That said, deciding enemies were fair game to attack instead of negotiate because he considered them "recurring villans" was more Meta than I was willing to stomach, so I had them teleport out.

[Azoth]

Tucker's Kobolds work because it is a community not individual characters so wealth is not really the question. There are no magical items to be had in their entire village, either. They work by war of attrition. Passages medium players might be able to squeeze through, these guys can run through. Murder holes, pit traps, arrow traps, swinging blade traps, poisons, and much worse cover the area. Try navigating narrow winding corridors in places where you are being shot at by kobolds who split move so they can retreat back into cover before you act. Pikes coming from every angle through tiny slits. All manner of alchemical items raining down splashing death when you bunch up. It is horror and mayhem and death...all by a swarm of CR1/4 to at most CR1 enemies.

[Karoht]

Party of level 4 characters.
Handful of CR 1/2 orcs and goblins and such.

Party plunges into the ruins of a castle. Open air.
Baddies continue to use hit and run tactics, constantly falling back, using the terrain (the ruins) to their advantage. Firing crossbows from cover. Gave one of them a wand of Magic Missile, stuck him in the tower (nearly falling over as it is) and proceed to pew pew quite a few missiles off before the party realizes that they can use the cover too.

Thats when the orcs got desperate. And started shoving over the stone walls that were crumbling apart as it is. Onto the party that was huddling behind the walls for cover. The party didn't like that.

Then the party makes it to the tower. The one that is literally teetering and crumbling apart. And they charge up the spiral staircase.
Fun fact, spiral staircases were popular in castle design due to the constraints it placed on right handed attackers, while making it very simple for right handed defenders to have the advantage at the top of the stairs with spears.
So the orcs literally kick over a barrel of oil towards the stairs, coating the stairs in oil. The party slips and slides but eventually makes it about half way up.
And thats when they hit the caltrops.
And after much cursing, they stumble their way up to about the 3/4 mark, when the orcs light the stairs on fire, and shove the flaming barrel down the stairs.

The party is pretty pissed off at this point, and proceeds to force themselves up to the top of the tower.
Remember how the orcs were shoving walls over onto them?
Remember how the tower was noticably falling apart?
They get to the top of the tower, only to find a rope ladder hanging out the window. And they see the orcs at the bottom knocking out a few supports on the bottom of the already falling apart tower. The orcs then run for the cover of the forest.
The party managed to jump out of the window and NOT die as the tower collapsed.

Much to say, they were pretty pissed to be outplayed by a bunch of 1 hit dice 1/2 CR creatures. Which they failed to defeat, and got next to no loot for because the bad guys got away.


The party was extremely mad. They'd been harassed by these orcs as they marched through a swamp towards another objective. The orcs never actually tried to kill them before the castle encounter, merely ambushed them and distracted them and took their stuff during the night. Mostly just food and supplies, nothing valuable. The party got mad and stormed into the hideout without really thinking it through. No one in the party died, though they burned through just about every resource and spell they had that day. The night before they fireballed the ruined castle hideout pretty much into the ground. The day of hell with collapsing walls and tower was 10 orcs. Seriously. 10.


However, this is partly due to my inexperience as a DM. I didn't take into account the use of such tactics as something that would increase the CR. I probably should have treated the walls and the stairs and the tower all as traps, which I didn't.

Bottom Line: Do not underestimate low CR creatures. They can hit you like a ton of bricks, if you give them half a chance.

[Hiro Protagonest]

As an aside, I really don't 'get' the Tucker's Kobolds scenario. Unless you're overburdening the kobold lair with wealth and magic far beyond what creatures of their level should have, the players are going to have enough avatar strength to just power through and win anyway, even if played less than intelligently.

But it's going to take quite a few resources. Eight kobolds is what, CR 3? Yeah, CR 5 should be taking up a quarter of their daily resources. This encounter should be negligible. But eight regular old kobolds with standard WBL can take up over half a 5th level party's resources for the day.

[Crasical]

Tucker's Kobolds work because it is a community not individual characters so wealth is not really the question. There are no magical items to be had in their entire village, either. They work by war of attrition. Passages medium players might be able to squeeze through, these guys can run through. Murder holes, pit traps, arrow traps, swinging blade traps, poisons, and much worse cover the area. Try navigating narrow winding corridors in places where you are being shot at by kobolds who split move so they can retreat back into cover before you act. Pikes coming from every angle through tiny slits. All manner of alchemical items raining down splashing death when you bunch up. It is horror and mayhem and death...all by a swarm of CR1/4 to at most CR1 enemies.

Kobolds that only hit the fighter on a natural 20? Hiding behind cover that magic missile ignores? moving through corridors that the cleric can stone shape or disintigrate or fill with magic, filled with traps the rogue can bypass with ease?

I'm not disparaging how powerful clever tactics are, but I think the story overstate how far you can push it. Like I said, the players eventually gain enough avatar strength that no matter how prepared the Kobolds are, they can't meaningfully damage players. I just can't buy that a 12th level wizard or fighter couldn't just shrug off everything the kobolds throw at them.

[lunar2]

about the only thing i did to them was:

rogue searches the door, then fighter and barbarian stand to either side, with readied actions to attack whatever is on the other side, while the sorcerer stands back with a readied action to cast whatever he felt like at the moment. they do this same strategy every single time.

one time, the rogue searched the door, and found no traps. they got the setup, and the rogue opened the door. a polar ray trap with a proximity trigger at the other end of the hall behind the door shoots down the hall and hits the rogue for max damage (we always roll all damage at once, so 1d6 lands on 6 equals world of hurt), putting him in the dying range. needless to say, the player was absolutely pissed that i put in a trap he couldn't find. he actually could have, had they circled around the other way. it was only a 50% chance it would actually work, but he just assumed that with a simple search check, you can find any and every trap that can possibly affect you. i'd even given them a hint, because the wall opposite the door was cracked from repeated freezing and thawing.

[Mari01]

Kobolds that only hit the fighter on a natural 20? Hiding behind cover that magic missile ignores? moving through corridors that the cleric can stone shape or disintigrate or fill with magic, filled with traps the rogue can bypass with ease?

I'm not disparaging how powerful clever tactics are, but I think the story overstate how far you can push it. Like I said, the players eventually gain enough avatar strength that no matter how prepared the Kobolds are, they can't meaningfully damage players. I just can't buy that a 12th level wizard or fighter couldn't just shrug off everything the kobolds throw at them.

The point is that your players will have to expend things. Sure your fighter wont die from that hallway. But they're gonna lob alchemist fire until he gets there. Yea the rogue can bypass some of the traps. How quickly can he get past all of them while being shot at and rushed by the group to stop taking fire. And I'd rule that if you just go around moving stones in a cave you'd risk a cave in for both sides. For all you know they use a support beam as cover or something.

[Rogue Shadows]

The point is that your players will have to expend things. Sure your fighter wont die from that hallway. But they're gonna lob alchemist fire until he gets there. Yea the rogue can bypass some of the traps. How quickly can he get past all of them while being shot at and rushed by the group to stop taking fire. And I'd rule that if you just go around moving stones in a cave you'd risk a cave in for both sides. For all you know they use a support beam as cover or something.

Quantity has a quality all on its own, basically.

It may have taken awhile, but the Persians *did* with at Thermopylae, for example.

[TuggyNE]

a polar ray trap with a proximity trigger at the other end of the hall behind the door shoots down the hall and hits the rogue for max damage (we always roll all damage at once, so 1d6 lands on 6 equals world of hurt), putting him in the dying range.

I can't help but comment on this. Does this mean you roll a single d6, then multiply by the caster level to determine total damage? (1d6 comes up 6, CL 15, 90 damage total with no further rolls?)

[lunar2]

that's right. but we don't deal with massive damage rules, so it's not quite as bad as it sounds. this group was just so used to playing a certain style though, and they hated it when i DM'd because i would always try a new tactic.

a few other examples:

my first campaign as a dm:

in an arena fight, their first opponent was a huge earth elemental. he drops into the ground, leaving only his head exposed. i rule that this reduces his effective size to medium, reducing space, but not reach, as well. they quit the campaign because they think i'm being unfair by having a monster that can hit them when they can't hit it. much later, i find the rules for trench fighting, which say pretty much the same thing that i ruled on my own.

campaign 2: dread wraith attacking from inside a wall (this is actually their favored tactic, according to the MM). shadows with sorcerer levels repeatedly casting silent prismatic spray while hiding in the floor. after a few rounds of this, one player finally gets the bright idea to ready an action to attack when the shadows come up. of course, predicting where the shadows would come up is pretty hard when you're in a barn, so it was almost 10 more rounds before the sorcerer used a spell (forgot which) to track where the shadows were.

campaign 3: kobold were-rats infest the sewer. the party thinks it's horrible when the kobolds actually yell for backup. next adventure, a winter wolf runs a pack of worgs and wolves harassing a village. when the PCs are in town visiting one of the players' uncle, the wolf pack runs through the town at night making a bunch of noise to keep everyone awake. the uncle (a 4th level ranger) climbs on a roof and starts shooting his bow. what do the PCs do? they run out the front door and try to take on the entire pack at once (they're level 2, and this pack contained 1 winter wolf, a dozen worgs, a couple dire wolves, and about 30 regular wolves). needless to say, TPK. although, to their credit, they did manage to take down the winter wolf before they died, so they saved the village.

campaign 4: a 20th level shadowcaster who had researched all the mysteries in the ToM twice instead of having a bunch of gear (there was a bounty n her head, so the PCs would still get their WBL). she, of course, knew the PCs were coming, since they'd been fighting their way through her cave system for over an hour. when they got to her, she'd had all her setup mysteries already cast (difficult terrain, summoned shadow elementals, that immediate action dimension door thing, etc.). they actually managed to beat her, but not before the dominated fighter that was built to combat casters took out the sorcerer. this was also the campaign with the polar ray trap (but that was earlier).

now that i've been thinking about this over night, i can probably come up with a dozen or more of these.

a blue dragon cast invisibility and flew away when it was seriously injured (duh).

an advanced tulani eladrin influenced by the flame card that used greater invisibility + a bunch of buffs, and ignored everyone to kill the 1 PC she was after, and then greater teleported away.

most of these probably wouldn't even count as "teaching the players a lesson" if the players knew anything besides full attack + some kind of spell combo.

[Exirtadorri]

Ok, here is a question I posted in a thread called PF campaign need ideas. My group does the exact opposite. They NEVER use tactics. I'm lucky if I dont have the skip them on their turn for lack of an idea of what to do. I have so many elaborate stories and plans but I can't ever use them because i know it'll kill them. How do I teach them a lesson in tactics other then handing them haphazard ambush. I honestly feel that if I use something like hobgoblins or anysort of pouncing creature. Let alone something that has longevity or craft and with (like a devil) PLEASE HELP

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ok, here is a question I posted in a thread called PF campaign need ideas. My group does the exact opposite. They NEVER use tactics. I'm lucky if I dont have the skip them on their turn for lack of an idea of what to do. I have so many elaborate stories and plans but I can't ever use them because i know it'll kill them. How do I teach them a lesson in tactics other then handing them haphazard ambush. I honestly feel that if I use something like hobgoblins or anysort of pouncing creature. Let alone something that has longevity or craft and with (like a devil) PLEASE HELP

What level is the party?

[Exirtadorri]

The party just hit level 6