PDA

View Full Version : Party Roles Too Specific



Thrawn183
2007-01-13, 06:21 PM
I have a question: what do you do with a party that has pushed their characters into very specific roles? If your main melee'er is specked for mounted combat, he'll be at a severe disadvantage in a dungeon crawl. If, as in my party, the caster has selected multiple powers that are mind effecting what happens when you want to throw a golem or some undead at the party?

I feel that if you adjust encounters to what the pc's are good at, they will have too easy a time. At the same time, they might get annihilated by something that, if they hadn't specialized so much, would have really just been a bump in the rode.

Do you guys have any suggestions?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-13, 06:23 PM
Are there any situations between them where a particular type of monster is devastating to one PC, but easy to another? The answer might be in attacking with so many enemies that require a specific PC to counter that they have to spread themselves out and play to their best.

Thrawn183
2007-01-13, 06:27 PM
That's good, but how do you send that many monsters that are strong enough to be challenging but not overpowering?

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-13, 06:30 PM
Beats me. I just match the party one-for-one with high level enemies that are dead set on tracking down their weakest opponent, then letting the PC's figure it out themselves.

I have a lot of PC deaths sometimes.

Thrawn183
2007-01-13, 06:31 PM
Beats me. I just match the party one-for-one with high level enemies that are dead set on tracking down their weakest opponent, then letting the PC's figure it out themselves.

I have a lot of PC deaths sometimes.


Hahaha, I like it. Though I have to be careful with PC deaths right now because I TPK'd them last session...

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-13, 06:32 PM
That's good, but how do you send that many monsters that are strong enough to be challenging but not overpowering?

One way of doing it would just be to take party strengths and weaknesses into account--for example, it's fine to give something with weak will saves Iron Will, Endurance, and Steadfast Determination as its feats, and send it against the party, but if you're throwing something undead at them in tight quarters (no mind effecting, no mounted, etc) maybe make it a CR = party level - 2 undead rather than a CR = party level undead.

PMDM
2007-01-13, 06:36 PM
Try setting up a situation where the PCs have a tactical advantage or disadvantage.

One thing I do ever y 3 seesions or so, is let the PCs prepare ahead for encounter. It could be as complex as fortifying a castle with proper defences, or as simple as using a divination spell to see into the future.

Thrawn183
2007-01-13, 06:37 PM
One way of doing it would just be to take party strengths and weaknesses into account--for example, it's fine to give something with weak will saves Iron Will, Endurance, and Steadfast Determination as its feats, and send it against the party, but if you're throwing something undead at them in tight quarters (no mind effecting, no mounted, etc) maybe make it a CR = party level - 2 undead rather than a CR = party level undead.

I have tried using things like Iron Will before, but I didn't know enough about things like Endurance and Steadfast Determination till very recently. I've been spending a lot of time this vacation period to rectify that but suggestions never hurt :smallsmile: .

Premier
2007-01-13, 06:42 PM
Just run your adventures the same way you'd run them for any other groups. Overspecialization is nothing but a tactical mistake, just like failure to scout ahead, to buy proper supplies, or to have a battle plan.

If your players went on what they knew to be a long wilderness adventure with no rations and no hunting/fishing skills out of lack of foresight, would you just twist the world to mollycoddle them and declare that they don't need to eat? Nope, you'd have them starve to death. Same thing here.

oriong
2007-01-13, 06:42 PM
Ultimately D+D is about this already: playing to the party's strengths to allow them to suceed and shine, but using their weaknesses as a way to keep them in line and to strike at when you need to make them vulnerable.

Unless you want the adventure to be a long pain-session for a given party member there's stuff you just don't throw at them: you don't create a whole adventure of highly magic immune creatures and spell eaters unless you want the spellcasters to have a tough time of it.

For example, with the mounted combat machine. You don't want to send them on tons of tight dungeon crawls, and honestly you shouldn't: you have to work with your PC's desires after all.

A good example for him might be to start the adventure as a brawl in a large open area where he can use his mounted combat abilities to their fullest and wipe the floor with them and feel like he's accomplished something and is contributing. Then, the defeated foes retreat back to their lair, pursued by the PCs (but probably forcing the guy to abandon his mount due to tight quarters or at least limiting their options when mounted) where the opponents can be fought but present a much greater challenge due to the PCs loss of ability.

For the wizard, roughly the same thing applies, allowing him to use his abilities to help the party out, but throwing something he can't affect when you want to give him a challenge. It's also a good way to make normally weak opponents much more of a challenge. A normal high level wizard wouldn't have much problem at all with a squad of skeletons, but a mind-mage will have much greater troubles.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-13, 06:56 PM
Like my favorite gestalt builds (rogue-type/fighter-type). I'm totally worthless against anything immune to critical hits. But because I know this, I carry around special weapons and gear to deal with these threats. Especially a collection of wands, scrolls, potions, and light weapons made of rainbows of different materials and with different energy types. It's my fault for specializing, so I do what I can to make up for it.

Thrawn183
2007-01-13, 07:36 PM
If i can summarize what many of you are syaing, you think that PC's should shine some of the time, have tough battles some of the time, and always know that something that could whip them is waiting in the wings.

The reason I was so concerned was that the 13th levl party, composed of a wilder (with sorceror cohort), ur priest, lurk/pyrokineticist and warrior of darkness was almost tpk'd by an iron golem. I started to wonder if I was doing something wrong because the party I play with weekly has never had a challenge that hard for the party to handle.

oriong
2007-01-13, 07:54 PM
Well, I think I can see part of the problem here.

You've got an Iron Golem, which is CR 13 to begin with, and check out the party it's going against.

You've got the wilder, who probably can't affect it with the powers it has (psions are good at dealing with constructs with their crystal effect,s but wilders als ohave a small power list. Is this the mind affecting one?).

You've got the Ur Priest, who is a mess of a caster right now, since he probably only got into it relatively recently and most of his spells won't work anyway. His abilities also depend on what his original class was, but it was probably a caster class, or a multiclass mix.

The lurk/pyro is going to lose all of his major abilities against a golem, both sneak attack, powers, and his pyrokineticist abilities will all be worthless.

I don't know what a warrior of darkness is, but he's probably just as good as nromal against them...so long as he has an adamantine weapon.

So they're fighting an opponent which is immune to the primary abilities of 3 out of the 4 PCs, and they may not be able to use their secondary abilities very well (As you say, they're over specialized). I'm hoping the warrior at least had an adamantine weapon.

But also, only one of these characters has a good fortitude save, when faced with the golem's extremely nasty poison breath.

Golems are something you have to be really careful with, they've got highly specific DR, and are immune to a slew of things, they can be a much greater than CR challenge for a party who isn't prepared, and it sounds like yours isn't prepared.

OzymandiasVolt
2007-01-13, 08:35 PM
Here's a question: what fun is it to know that you can always win, even if it IS a challenge?

Just because a golem would decimate the party doesn't mean you shouldn't send one if the plot calls for it. It just means the party will have to 1) get creative or 2) learn when to cut their losses.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-13, 08:37 PM
Plot < Fun.

oriong
2007-01-13, 08:44 PM
Just because a golem would decimate the party doesn't mean you shouldn't send one if the plot calls for it. It just means the party will have to 1) get creative or 2) learn when to cut their losses.


Honestly, this seems just absolutely backwards to me. The plot doesn't take precedence over the game. You shouldn't make a plot that calls for something to decimate the players in the first place.

If you are challenging the players then they know there's a chance they won't win, but there's a massive difference between 'challenging them' and sending in something that will wipe the floor with them.

It's all very well to say that the PCs have to get creative, but the game only supports that so far, each PC has a certain set of abilities, plus the abilities of their equipment. There's only so much creativity possible, unless the DM creates the environment specifically to help them out (and gives them some clue to it) or there's the random burst of inspiration which no DM should ever count on.

Hallavast
2007-01-13, 08:48 PM
Plot < Fun.
Sometimes having to run for your life frantically down a trap filled corridor IS fun.

oriong
2007-01-13, 08:51 PM
Yes, which is why fun is important, but smashing your PCs just because the plot calls for it is a bad idea. Especially because you need those PCs if any plot is going to happen.

Wehrkind
2007-01-13, 09:17 PM
One needs to keep in mind that unless they are put into a locked room with no means of escape and an iron golem, there is no reason to wipe. That is a situation that needs to be planned around, the PCs backing off and figuring a way around it. I think too often people assume if they can't deal with a situation by their standard tactics in one encounter, it is overpowered and they wipe. As a GM, it is your job to make certain there are ways around the golem. Just as a stone wall is impenetrable to a group of PCs at low level, you don't say it is impossible because they can't hack through it. They search for secret doors. So perhaps the golem can be lured somewhere, then trapped, or lured off to get half the party past, then the last character looses it and races back. Just off the top of my head, but not every encounter needs to be solved with combat (wow... I can't believe I just said that. I am Captain Hack and Slash amongst my friends.)

Coming up with clever ways to solve seemingly impossible problems is pretty much the definition of fun most RPGs work off of, along with the fun of pretending to be someone with a more intresting life.

Hallavast
2007-01-13, 09:17 PM
Yes, which is why fun is important, but smashing your PCs just because the plot calls for it is a bad idea. Especially because you need those PCs if any plot is going to happen.
All too true in most situations, but if it gets to the point where the players know they won't lose, then things start to get ugly. Sometimes ya gotta put some righteous fear of God into 'em.

geez3r
2007-01-13, 09:27 PM
Every now and then the PC's need to have their butts handed to them. It shouldn't be your job to make everything easy for them, nor should it be the DM's job to mop the floor with them all the time. As they are PC's most of the time they will succeed in their endeavors, however getting stomped into the ground is a good way to remind the players that they have made enemies that know their weaknesses and will fully exploit them.

oriong
2007-01-13, 09:32 PM
Getting stomped into the ground typically leaves the PCs dead, D+D isn't a very merciful game to the losers of a fight.

While I definitely agree that the PCs shouldn't waltz into every fight believing they should win, this is something that takes no real work on the DM's part, what does take effort is making sure that everyone's fun isn't ruined when the whole group is wiped out due to bad luck or a poorly chosen challenge. (the DM just has to make sure not to go too far and start fudging or dropping deus ex machina every time things go bad for the PCs)

It IS a good thing for the PCs to have battles that go badly, but sending out something just to crush them so they're kept in line is also a bad idea, it just gives them a feeling that the game is arbitrary: that they win or lose only by DM fiat rather than their own skill or choices. They need good challenges, not crushing.

Hallavast
2007-01-13, 09:49 PM
Getting stomped into the ground typically leaves the PCs dead, D+D isn't a very merciful game to the losers of a fight.

While I definitely agree that the PCs shouldn't waltz into every fight believing they should win, this is something that takes no real work on the DM's part, what does take effort is making sure that everyone's fun isn't ruined when the whole group is wiped out due to bad luck or a poorly chosen challenge. (the DM just has to make sure not to go too far and start fudging or dropping deus ex machina every time things go bad for the PCs)

It IS a good thing for the PCs to have battles that go badly, but sending out something just to crush them so they're kept in line is also a bad idea, it just gives them a feeling that the game is arbitrary: that they win or lose only by DM fiat rather than their own skill or choices. They need good challenges, not crushing.
Oh, come on. There are ways to keep your party alive if they lose. Their enemies might take prisoners, they can use teleport or other magic to escape, alien monkey space pirates might abduct everyone... all it takes is a little creativity. I mean, come on. How hard is it to get away from an Iron Golem?:smallamused: I'm not saying use DM fiat. I'm saying that you should encourage your players to pick their battles carefully. Like say, if you're DMing a party of 8th level players who predominantly use enchantments and sneak attacks, you should feel comfortable enough to put an Iron Golem or two in to guard a few places that you don't want the party to go. If the party is smart, they'll know better than to charge in guns a blazin. Note, however that its a good idea to give them other places to go to achieve their goals, however.

oriong
2007-01-13, 10:01 PM
Of course DM fiat can always keep the PCs alive, but that just enforces the feeling that they have no control over what happens, and actually anyone taken to below 0 by an iron golem is probably dead (even if the golem doesn't smash them, that 3d4 con damage has a very good chance of taking them out when it kicks in).

I'm not saying never let the PCs see anything above their CR, if it takes putting a dragon or a golem that will crush them to tar gaurding a door to tell them 'don't go this way unless you've got one hell of a plan' then I say go for it.

But that's one of the differences between a passive and an active encounter. PCs can have the time to plan and strategize and work around a passive encounter, or if it's obviously too big for them to handle just turn tail and run.

but if they walk into a room and an iron golem smashes through the wall and starts pounding on them then they don't have the time for any of this, and they could end up in a bad place before they have a chance to realize their situation.

This is made even worse if the PCs aren't familiar with monsters, not everyone does browse through the monster manual and they might have no idea that the iron golem can do what it can do.

Really, you shouldn't end up in a situation where the PCs have to do X or die (whether X is run away, pull the blue plot-lever, or fill their spellbooks with indirect effect spells), things should certainly be much harder if they don't do X, but not impossible.

Now, like you've pointed out, an iron golem isn't too hard an escape. it's just nasty if it doesn't occur to the PCs to run until it's too late (and if they don't know what iron golem stats are, then they may have a very hard time telling when 'too late' is). You certainly don't want to have the opposite effect and making the PCs turn tail the moment someone is taken below 1/2 hit points.

And to be fair: running away is often a horrible strategy, many monsters have things like reach, magical abilities, and good movement which makes it nearly impossible for running to do anything more than give the beast some free AoOs and make the PCs deaths less dignified.

Hallavast
2007-01-13, 10:25 PM
Right. I don't think we're dissagreeing on anything, really. We're just arguing the ill effects of opposite extremes against one another.

As long as you're reasonable about things, it pays to have the party's proverbial ass handed to them if it's appropriate for what's happened in the campaign thus far as long as you can keep them alive. However, doing this on a regular basis isn't a good idea, because the PCs will either grow frusterated with the too-difficult encounters, or they'll just run away all the time.

So, a series of hard-fought victories with an occasional loss is optimal in most campaigns.

Dark
2007-01-13, 10:26 PM
A golem, in particular, might be instructed not to kill, and not to pursue beyond a certain point. At least, if I had a golem in my house, I'd give it a set of instructions that are not likely to accidentally kill my friends! Golems don't have the intelligence to evaluate a situation on their own.

Thus, it should be realistic enough to have a golem that will defeat the party in such a way that they can lick their wounds and try again. And that process might teach them something about the problems of overspecialization :)

They might even get smart, and figure out what amount of "playing dead" will let them get past the golem!

Thrawn183
2007-01-14, 12:02 AM
Yeah, in this case the warrior of darkness didn't have an adamantine weapon, but was still able to do enough damage to overcome the golems DR dealing about 10 dmg per hit. I had the golem only attack her but nobody healed her and she was knocked unconcious. Had anybody healed her, the thing would have gone down in like 5 or 6 rounds. Instead, she was knocked unconscious, the wilder (the mind affecting caster) was knocked unconscious. The fight lasted so many rounds it was rediculous. They had time to pour healing potions, as full round actions, down the throats of the fallen pc's to finally finish the thing off. They're just "lucky" the thing didn't attack people when they were unconscious...

DeathQuaker
2007-01-14, 12:02 PM
Ultimately D+D is about this already: playing to the party's strengths to allow them to suceed and shine, but using their weaknesses as a way to keep them in line and to strike at when you need to make them vulnerable.

I agree with this. And yeah, I wouldn't always throw enemies at the PC's that exploit the party's weaknesses--but likewise, I wouldn't always give them encounters that happen to play to the party's strengths. They need to be aware that while there are things they have chosen to be good at, not every challenge is going to be met by their skills. In fact, you need to give them some challenges that take advantage of their weaknesses so they learn how to adapt to unexpected situations.

In the game I'm running, I have a player who's worked hard to maximise his Rogue's Sneak Attack effectiveness. In certain situations, he can often get into a flanking position or feint to get multiple sneak attacks off. Some of the encounters I throw at the party allow him to do this and shine. But others I certainly do not. For example, I threw at the party a shambling mound, which is immune to crits and sneak attacks. The rogue's player knew he couldn't do much damage against it, and moreover that the mound would likely crush him if he got into a melee. The player quickly adapted--even though this wasn't his area of expertise, he started throwing things instead (he was a halfling with good dex, so he could throw weapons pretty well, even though he rarely ever used the tactic) -- tanglefoot bags, alchemist's fire, etc. and still contributed valuably to the combat, even though at first he seemed out of his element in the fight.

Thomas
2007-01-14, 12:25 PM
A golem, in particular, might be instructed not to kill, and not to pursue beyond a certain point. At least, if I had a golem in my house, I'd give it a set of instructions that are not likely to accidentally kill my friends! Golems don't have the intelligence to evaluate a situation on their own.

Why build a golem if you're not going to let it go meshuggah?

OzymandiasVolt
2007-01-14, 12:50 PM
I didn't say "kill the party". I just said that if the plot involves a golem, don't hold it back just because the party can't take the golem in a fight. Winning every single time is BORING. Too few people realize that discretion is the better part of valor.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-14, 12:56 PM
I let my PC's fake their own deaths if they get too low on HP, and often have enemies that spare them if they knock them out for various reasons. In the latter, there's usually some sort of penalty to it.

A golem, for instance, might not be able to readily tell the difference between unconscious and dead.

Thrawn183
2007-01-14, 09:57 PM
I let my PC's fake their own deaths if they get too low on HP, and often have enemies that spare them if they knock them out for various reasons. In the latter, there's usually some sort of penalty to it.

A golem, for instance, might not be able to readily tell the difference between unconscious and dead.

Do you use bluffs checks against sense motive?

One of my pc's tried that against a cleric and on the fly I came up with him making a heal check to figure it out. Don't know if it was the right choice though (he executed the pc)

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-14, 11:17 PM
Yeah, I used bluff versus sense motive. I briefly considered using disguise instead, but figured that was a little off.

Dervag
2007-01-14, 11:58 PM
Create a situation where the party encounters the monster they can't kill in something other than a duel to the death. Give the PCs a chance to run away or temporarily immobilize the golem after they realize that their best techniques are useless against the thing.

The party regroups and does a team huddle. Their conclusion will be (essentially) "we're going to need a bigger gun."

Then they go on a sidequest to acquire whatever special weapons they need to confront and defeat the monster.

Desaril
2007-01-15, 01:16 AM
Honestly, this seems just absolutely backwards to me. The plot doesn't take precedence over the game. You shouldn't make a plot that calls for something to decimate the players in the first place.



I think the plot should be written to make the PCs heroes. Therefore, the plot may dictate that the PCs get wiped for a time, but come back later. Consider The Empire Strikes Back- Luke loses a hand, Han is captured, Threepio blown to bits and (rarely mentioned) Lando lost control of Cloud City. Pretty crappy scenario, but it sets up the Return of the Jedi.

Also, in a long-term campaign, you have to stick by the story you've told so far If the GM puts a very-powerful lich in the campaign and explains that he takes no prisoners; it's hard to go back from that. A really good GM can adapt and come up with a reason to lose the fight or capture the PCs, but once the PCs hear what they're up against, they take the risk if they choose to engage.

It's a completely different thing if the PCs are just wandering through a dungeon and randomly (from the PCs perspective) run into the same lich. They don't have any warning and did not choose to take him on, so it's not their fault.

Basically, I'm saying you shouldn't let player bravado force you to modify the threat level of the campaign. Dangerous monsters should be dangerous. If your players don't have the common sense to handle your campaign, you need to restart the campaign.