Should I lower the difficulty because my players are dumb?

[heavyfuel]

Ok, so I'm DMing what is, by my standards, a very large group (6 players, all lv8) and last game night my players came across two encounters. One with 5 "equal" level characters (2 lv8, 3 lv7 barbarians), and one with lots of mooks (40+, most lv1 with some lv2).

Before anyone asks, all players have played before. None of them are new to the game, in fact, 4 of them have DMed before.

I'm putting a spoiler here because after writing the whole thing I noticed I was ranting a lot. If you want more details on everything, feel free to read it all, otherwise there's the TL;DR version below.


So, first encounter. They go into a room - knowing that the enemy would be waiting for them - without a care in the world. The Archer Fighter opens the door and get shocked when I tell him that the 5 guys shot him with arrows, I mean, how dare I give the enemies a ranged weapon? They managed to kill the guys (barely) after the tank crusader thought it was the best idea in the world to charge in the middle of 6 whirling frenzy barbarians because he thinks he is immortal due to his AC. They could hit him on a 9/9/14... Note that all they had to do was step back into the corridor they came from and just go 300 on their asses. I didn't even plan it that way, it just occurred to me 3 seconds after the genius move by the immortal crusader.

And then, for the second encounter, they decided it was a great idea to split the party. So while 3 were studying an underground level, the other 3 burst into the room to face all 40+ of the mooks by themselves. They were alone for the first 5 or so rounds and barely made it out alive by the time the other group showed up and got to clean up the mess. Btw, they KNEW there were lots of enemies in the room, still went in guns blazing, outnumbered 14 to 1. Also, neither the wizard nor the cleric thought it would be a good idea to prepare some AoE spells like a freaking fireball or an obscuring mist. Zero, zilch, nil, nada.

Something that should be said is that the ONLY reason they got out of both fights alive was my generous pinch of plot armor and dice altering.

Afterwards, I got to hear them moan that my encounters were too difficult :smallannoyed:. Seriously?! You're too dumb to realize that going in 6v1 or 40v3 aren't just bad ideas but are in fact terrible ones and my encounters are too difficult!? Give me a freaking break.


TL;DR: Players are about as smart as a stack of hay and find my CR appropriate encounters too difficult. Should I lower the difficulty or go George Martin on their plot armor and let them learn how to play the hard way?

[Jacob.Tyr]

Ok, so I'm DMing what is, by my standards, a very large group (6 players, all lv8) and last game night my players came across two encounters. One with 5 "equal" level characters (2 lv8, 3 lv7 barbarians), and one with lots of mooks (40+, most lv1 with some lv2).

Before anyone asks, all players have played before. None of them are new to the game, in fact, 4 of them have DMed before.

I'm putting a spoiler here because after writing the whole thing I noticed I was ranting a lot. If you want more details on everything, feel free to read it all, otherwise there's the TL;DR version below.


So, first encounter. They go into a room - knowing that the enemy would be waiting for them - without a care in the world. The Archer Fighter opens the door and get shocked when I tell him that the 5 guys shot him with arrows, I mean, how dare I give the enemies a ranged weapon? They managed to kill the guys (barely) after the tank crusader thought it was the best idea in the world to charge in the middle of 6 whirling frenzy barbarians because he thinks he is immortal due to his AC. They could hit him on a 9/9/14... Note that all they had to do was step back into the corridor they came from and just go 300 on their asses. I didn't even plan it that way, it just occurred to me 3 seconds after the genius move by the immortal crusader.

And then, for the second encounter, they decided it was a great idea to split the party. So while 3 were studying an underground level, the other 3 burst into the room to face all 40+ of the mooks by themselves. They were alone for the first 5 or so rounds and barely made it out alive by the time the other group showed up and got to clean up the mess. Btw, they KNEW there were lots of enemies in the room, still went in guns blazing, outnumbered 14 to 1. Also, neither the wizard nor the cleric thought it would be a good idea to prepare some AoE spells like a freaking fireball or an obscuring mist. Zero, zilch, nil, nada.

Something that should be said is that the ONLY reason they got out of both fights alive was my generous pinch of plot armor and dice altering.

Afterwards, I got to hear them moan that my encounters were too difficult :smallannoyed:. Seriously?! You're too dumb to realize that going in 6v1 or 40v3 aren't just bad ideas but are in fact terrible ones and my encounters are too difficult!? Give me a freaking break.


TL;DR: Players are about as smart as a stack of hay and find my CR appropriate encounters too difficult. Should I lower the difficulty or go George Martin on their plot armor and let them learn how to play the hard way?
Losing a character sucks, but doing anything risky is boring without the chance of dying from it. Screw plot armor, bring on more char-gen.

If they think you using whirling-frenzy barbarians means you're being too hard on them, I really don't know what to tell you. Stick to the monster manual, no more using PC classes against them.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I'm all in favor of tailoring your encounters to your party, but the benchmark for me is what they're capable of.
If they don't play their characters to what their builds permit or can't grasp basic tactics, they die. It's what happens to dumb adventurers.

[Andezzar]

The first encounter was not equal level. The party level is 9.2 and the Encounter Level 12. That makes it a very difficult encounter. And if handled stupidly such encounters are expected to result in casualties. I cannot calculate the second encounter because you did not give a CR for the mook.

Where those just whirling Frenzy Barbarians or Spiritual Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarians? All stupid tactics aside the latter is pretty high on the optimization scale of melee characters. What does the party look like besides the crusader?

IMHO you should not pull punches with the PCs. Sure losing a character sucks, but only that way can they learn. Defeat does not always have to end with a retired character. Alternatively you could, as a learning experience, have weak creatures obviously use good tactics like BFC, clever positioning, buffing/debuffing etc.

[Mnemnosyne]

It may be necessary to adjust the encounters to teach them better tactics, but you've already made an enormous mistake by cheating in their favor.

I am curious as to what the spellcasters did prepare, especially considering there's both a cleric and a wizard of level 8 and you said they have no AoE spells. Those two may very well need to be assisted in understanding their spell list a bit better; at 8th level, the wizard should be using things like solid fog, Evard's black tentacles, stinking cloud, and so on in a situation with that many enemies, and that's just considering SRD spells.

I suggest adjusting the encounters to be weaker and try to teach them proper tactics if they do seem to be lacking them while you slowly ease them back to an appropriate level of difficulty, but don't ever cheat in their favor (or against them, for that matter). I strongly recommend to all DMs to roll openly whenever the results of the roll do not absolutely need to be secret; this lets the players clearly see that if the monsters are winning, they're doing so fairly, and it helps remove the temptation to assist your players by making the strike that would have killed one not hit, things of that nature.

[TypoNinja]

Ok, so I'm DMing what is, by my standards, a very large group (6 players, all lv8) and last game night my players came across two encounters. One with 5 "equal" level characters (2 lv8, 3 lv7 barbarians), and one with lots of mooks (40+, most lv1 with some lv2).

Before anyone asks, all players have played before. None of them are new to the game, in fact, 4 of them have DMed before.

I'm putting a spoiler here because after writing the whole thing I noticed I was ranting a lot. If you want more details on everything, feel free to read it all, otherwise there's the TL;DR version below.


So, first encounter. They go into a room - knowing that the enemy would be waiting for them - without a care in the world. The Archer Fighter opens the door and get shocked when I tell him that the 5 guys shot him with arrows, I mean, how dare I give the enemies a ranged weapon? They managed to kill the guys (barely) after the tank crusader thought it was the best idea in the world to charge in the middle of 6 whirling frenzy barbarians because he thinks he is immortal due to his AC. They could hit him on a 9/9/14... Note that all they had to do was step back into the corridor they came from and just go 300 on their asses. I didn't even plan it that way, it just occurred to me 3 seconds after the genius move by the immortal crusader.

And then, for the second encounter, they decided it was a great idea to split the party. So while 3 were studying an underground level, the other 3 burst into the room to face all 40+ of the mooks by themselves. They were alone for the first 5 or so rounds and barely made it out alive by the time the other group showed up and got to clean up the mess. Btw, they KNEW there were lots of enemies in the room, still went in guns blazing, outnumbered 14 to 1. Also, neither the wizard nor the cleric thought it would be a good idea to prepare some AoE spells like a freaking fireball or an obscuring mist. Zero, zilch, nil, nada.

Something that should be said is that the ONLY reason they got out of both fights alive was my generous pinch of plot armor and dice altering.

Afterwards, I got to hear them moan that my encounters were too difficult :smallannoyed:. Seriously?! You're too dumb to realize that going in 6v1 or 40v3 aren't just bad ideas but are in fact terrible ones and my encounters are too difficult!? Give me a freaking break.


TL;DR: Players are about as smart as a stack of hay and find my CR appropriate encounters too difficult. Should I lower the difficulty or go George Martin on their plot armor and let them learn how to play the hard way?

In a word. Yes. In slightly more words. You want to run a game at a level of Optimization that your players can deal with, so dialing it down to their ability is usually the appropriate decision in my experience.

Your problem seems slightly different though. It sounds more like none of your players are exactly tactically minded, even if their characters should be. A couple of object lessons that aren't quite lethal might be in order. Something like a couple of weak swarms. If you lack AoE a swarm is surprisingly hard to kill for their CR. Eight guys flailing lit torches at the insect swarm outta make them feel silly enough to cause somebody to think they need a better option.

Additionally, the Archer went in first? I'm sorry but the archer should never be first anywhere, hes the definition of not first, and even if his player doesn't know this the Character should. You might want to start volunteering to your Players in universe information that their Characters are aware of that they seem to not have, or alternatively encourage them to request it whenever they are in doubt about their situation if you feel like you volunteering it is taking the mystery out of the encounter.

[Khatoblepas]

Don't punish them for not knowing tactics, and don't acquiesce to them either. Teach them instead.

Teach the tank about chokepoints. Teach the wizards about crowd control. Deliberately set up scenarios where you can teach them these things. Have grizzled old veterans talk about their days in the war when a certain strategy really did wonders. Have enemies perform tactical manuevers against allies of theirs, so they can see what they're doing.

Letting them die teaches them nothing, and letting them live teaches them even less. I'm not one for the school of "F*** em, let em reroll", because trials by fire rarely, if ever, work. Players are more likely to just give up. because losing a character that takes ages to make is frustrating (it may have been less true in OD&D times, but these aren't OD&D times). As a DM, your job more than anything else is not just to present a world for the players to use, but to teach them ways to interact with that world. If your players have always had it easy, gradually increase the difficulty from a baseline, don't just overwhelm them. Videogames have tutorials and first levels that are easy for a reason. You can use the same paradigm here with green players (I don't care how many campaigns they've been in, if they're still this green strategy wise, they need teaching, not punishing) - tutorial dungeons can teach them the importance of crowd control, with conveniently placed scrolls of BFC and architecture that lends itself to good positioning. Have a swarm protecting a chest full of treasure, really note that their weapons are doing nothing, and keep a wand of Fireball, a scroll or two lying in another chest nearby. They use the scroll on the swarm, swarm dies, they get the treasure. Have a load of tough looking guards, and a scroll of Sleep nearby. Wizard will cast Sleep from the scroll, guards fall asleep, players celebrate. Big monster tries attacking them, tank lures it into a convenient chokepoint. It gets stuck there. Players celebrate. Ideally you'd want to do this from level 1, not level 8 (how did they even get to level 8?).

Your players are probably more naive than dumb - and only you can teach them how to play.

(Also, your Wizard should have Knowledge skills, you can use that to feed the players information: "It looks like this swarm is almost impossible to beat with just our swords, I hear that swarms really hate effects that disperse them, such as a fireball.". Get them to use their Knowledges. Often.)

[WarKitty]

I'm going to step back a minute here. This doesn't seem to be entirely an in-game problem. Your players are doing dumb things, but they're also complaining that the encounters are too difficult. I imagine if they get killed they're not going to learn, they're just going to think that the game is way too hard.

Before you do anything I would sit down and talk to the players. Tell them you want to run a game where the enemies are going to use smart tactics and that it seems like they're not trying to use them at all. Try to figure out why they're acting this way - I hate to say it but some players just want to win because their characters are that awesome, without having to worry about anything complex.

[nedz]

If this is a new party then the chances are that they haven't worked out what they need to do in order to survive. They won't have picked the right spells, nor yet worked out how to combine their forces for full effect. I would expect them to improve quite quickly and so you should keep going as you are for a few more sessions to see how they develop.

Splitting the party happens, they need to work out how to unsplit the party quickly — methods exist — or not do this.

If, after half a dozen sessions, they show no sign of improvement then you might want to talk to them, alternatively listen to their comments; if there is problem then, most likely, they will say something — even if it is oblique.

[Kesnit]

So, first encounter. They go into a room - knowing that the enemy would be waiting for them - without a care in the world. The Archer Fighter opens the door and get shocked when I tell him that the 5 guys shot him with arrows, I mean, how dare I give the enemies a ranged weapon?

Why did the enemies all have their bows up and ready? Were they just standing there, holding drawn bows? Even if the party was making noise, how were the enemies supposed to know the party weren't other bad guys (i.e. allies of the archers)?


They managed to kill the guys (barely) after the tank crusader thought it was the best idea in the world to charge in the middle of 6 whirling frenzy barbarians because he thinks he is immortal due to his AC.

That's what tanks are supposed to do... (Run into battle, not think they are immortal.) Also, you knew what the barbarians were; the crusader did not.


So while 3 were studying an underground level, the other 3 burst into the room to face all 40+ of the mooks by themselves. They were alone for the first 5 or so rounds and barely made it out alive by the time the other group showed up and got to clean up the mess.

How were LVL 1 and 2 mooks hitting LVL 8 PCs consistently enough and hard enough to cause that much damage?


Also, neither the wizard nor the cleric thought it would be a good idea to prepare some AoE spells like a freaking fireball or an obscuring mist. Zero, zilch, nil, nada.

So what did they do?

I think you have fallen for two issues I've seen a lot. First, since you know the whole situation, you forget that the players do not. Second, as much as I love this forum, it encourages more optimization than a lot of players ever use. The crusader is an example of both of these.

Your players complain that your encounters are too hard. There's a reason for this. Your encounters are too hard for the optimization level your players are on. You have two options - slowly work with them to raise the optimization level, or lower yours to fit with your group.

[prufock]

Ok, so I'm DMing what is, by my standards, a very large group (6 players, all lv8) and last game night my players came across two encounters. One with 5 "equal" level characters (2 lv8, 3 lv7 barbarians)
Encounter level 12


, and one with lots of mooks (40+, most lv1 with some lv2).
Encounter level 11-ish.

Party level: 9.2. When split, party level is 7.2.

So yes, your encounters may be too hard. Your party is definitely not thinking ahead or using effective tactics, but pitting them against encounters higher than party level isn't making it any easier.

As DM, two parts of your job are 1) balancing encounters and 2) making sure everyone is having fun. So yes, you should tailor your encounters to your party's abilities. As your party learns better tactics, you can pit them against higher-level encounters. Remember that enemies with tactical advantage increase the level of the encounter.

[_felagund]

your players don't have to play as you desire but they must use tactics. I've DM'ed similar groups before, my humble advices are:

1. Never use 3X critical threat enemies like orcs, they can one hit kill a pc. tend to select low dps, high hp creatures.
2. If they dont know using tactics, dont punish them instead find a mentor npc who can advice them. I recommend an eldritch knight since he can help for both fighting & spell casting issues..
3. Try to inform party about the dangers ahead. Its rarely fun to get ambushed. Tell ranger about the tracks etc...
4. Also avoid crowded fights, its really boring to find goblin #29
5. Give them XP bonus for using good tactics, if they can avoid bloodshed give them extra.
6. Finally there is no absolute correct way to play this game, if your players not having fun feel free to change.

(sorry for bad english)

[Sliver]

When designing an encounter, remember that challenge rating is set for a party of 4.

A level 4 character is CR 4 but is only party level 1. It has a 50% win chance and 50% death chance against a character of equal level, assuming similar optimization and power.

CR isn't perfect. For a single level 4 PC, a CR 1 encounter is considered the norm and should use around 20% of the PC's resources. I doubt that is usually the case.

Don't blindly go by CR, but if you make a party of equal level to your group's, then own up to it. They have to be smart for all of them to survive that.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Let me preface this with: Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Stupid is knowing better and doing it anyways.

Figure out which category your players fall in.
Teach the ignorant. Punish the stupid.

[Tengu_temp]

If the fights are too difficult for the players, then yes, you should make them easier, and slowly up the difficulty as the players learn the system.

Some people go all "trial by fire!" and "you learn the game as your characters die!", but honestly, that's bull****. This is a ****ing game. The purpose of a game is to have fun. If your players don't have fun because the combat is too hard, then you should dial the combat difficulty down, simple as that. Flexibility is a mark of a good DM, bull-headed refusal to budge is a mark of a bad one.

[Barstro]

I'm a fan of the high HP, low DPS enemy; allows for changing strategy in the middle of a fight.

I'm also a huge fan of strategy, which seems to go against your players' desires. Maybe they need to be led into a fight where the enemy is using good strategy; area effect, walls and other placement spells, ranged attacks over chasms. Treating PCs as immortal and impervious makes for a boring game imo.

Maybe you can take some baby steps;
"I charge into the crowd"
DM "Really? You charge into a room with 40 people? Are you sure?"
"Yes"
DM "Fine. That's 10 AoO" Do all rolls out in the open. "15 damage, and... you have been tripped"
"What? That's BS!"
DM "Yes, charging into a room of 40 people instead of having a spell caster toss in a grenade is BS. Player #2, what do you want to do?"
"I run in and help him"
DM "You run into a room where 40 people just took out your tank? *ahem* Are you sure?"
"Um... no. I say a silent prayer for fallen comrades and use magic missile."

[FishBonePendant]

I've got a Warlock in my campaign who acts like he's the greatest warrior in the universe because of his class but he constantly bitches about getting targeted by ranged enemies and nearly dieing even though all he has to do is TAKE COVER FROM THE TREE 5 FEET AWAY FROM YOU ****ING CLOWN!! Worst part? Everyone thinks I make enemies target him to punish him. No, they're targeting him because he does good damage and is a sitting duck! Maybe it's just a Warlock thing to be a cocky jerk?

[Vizzerdrix]

Losing a character sucks, but doing anything risky is boring without the chance of dying from it. Screw plot armor, bring on more char-gen.

I agree with this.

[Barstro]

If the fights are too difficult for the players, then yes, you should make them easier, and slowly up the difficulty as the players learn the system.


According to the OP, these are seasoned players who have DMed in the past. They know the system. It sounds more like they need to learn that there are consequences for action.


Flexibility is a mark of a good DM, bull-headed refusal to budge is a mark of a bad one.
The same can be said of players. A DM should not cater to the "I am a PC and I cannot die" attitude.

[Barstro]

I've got a Warlock in my campaign who acts like he's the greatest warrior in the universe because of his class but he constantly bitches about getting targeted by ranged enemies and nearly dieing even though all he has to do is TAKE COVER FROM THE TREE 5 FEET AWAY FROM YOU ****ING CLOWN!! Worst part? Everyone thinks I make enemies target him to punish him. No, they're targeting him because he does good damage and is a sitting duck! Maybe it's just a Warlock thing to be a cocky jerk?

Sounds like he needs to hear the enemies's leader shout out "Get the warlock while he's still out in the open. If he manages to find cover, we are lost".

For that matter, the OP should have his players overhear the enemies talking about them; "Woo, he walked right into that room of 40 mooks. Not even mooks, but APPLICANTS to become mooks. Can you imagine if they were actually trained? That reminds me, make sure everyone else is spaced out; I don't want some hero just waiting outside the door for them and have all these peons walk into a slaughter just because they were bottle-necked."

[Tengu_temp]

According to the OP, these are seasoned players who have DMed in the past. They know the system. It sounds more like they need to learn that there are consequences for action.

Then they're seasoned players who don't care about tactics. And you know what? That's completely fine. There are different ways to play the game. As long as the PCs don't do something stupidly suicidal - and no, splitting the party doesn't count as suicidal - they shouldn't be punished for their playstyle.


The same can be said of players. A DM should not cater to the "I am a PC and I cannot die" attitude.

Why not? What's important is that everyone on the table has fun. This is not some goddamn School Of Hard RP Knocks that prepares you to take on tougher and tougher challenges. It's a game. Some players play the game for tactical challenges, some play it for the story and roleplaying, some play it to relax and unwind. A good DM should recognize what his players want from the game and cater to them instead of punishing them.

A problem arises when the DM really wants to run the game one way, while the players want to play it the other way. Some kind of agreement has to be reached in such a case - OOC communication is the key to a good game!

[Magesmiley]

I'd say no. The encounters might've been a little on the tough side, but that can (and should) happen from time to time.

Keep in mind that PCs should expect to run into stuff that is too tough for them from time to time. Part of the art of playing, and playing well, is figuring out how tough an encounter is and adapting your tactics to compensate.

Not every encounter has to be a fight. Talking and running are also very acceptable tactics. Especially if the characters are outmatched. It sounds like the PCs chose to wade into the fights you've described, and they deserve what they get at that point.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think you have fallen for two issues I've seen a lot. First, since you know the whole situation, you forget that the players do not. Second, as much as I love this forum, it encourages more optimization than a lot of players ever use. The crusader is an example of both of these.

Your players complain that your encounters are too hard. There's a reason for this. Your encounters are too hard for the optimization level your players are on. You have two options - slowly work with them to raise the optimization level, or lower yours to fit with your group.
This.

Then they're seasoned players who don't care about tactics. And you know what? That's completely fine. There are different ways to play the game. As long as the PCs don't do something stupidly suicidal - and no, splitting the party doesn't count as suicidal - they shouldn't be punished for their playstyle.

Why not? What's important is that everyone on the table has fun. This is not some goddamn School Of Hard RP Knocks that prepares you to take on tougher and tougher challenges. It's a game. Some players play the game for tactical challenges, some play it for the story and roleplaying, some play it to relax and unwind. A good DM should recognize what his players want from the game and cater to them instead of punishing them.

A problem arises when the DM really wants to run the game one way, while the players want to play it the other way. Some kind of agreement has to be reached in such a case - OOC communication is the key to a good game!
And this.

Also, as others have noted, your encounters were both in the "extremely challenging" band. And as they were NPCs, they could easily be way more powerful than expected if you're good at optimizing.

[Segev]

"I charge into the crowd"
DM "Really? You charge into a room with 40 people? Are you sure?"
"Yes"
DM "Fine. That's 10 AoO" Do all rolls out in the open. "15 damage, and... you have been tripped"
"What? That's BS!"
DM "Yes, charging into a room of 40 people instead of having a spell caster toss in a grenade is BS. Player #2, what do you want to do?"

"Um, so I'm the caster...so I'll help him! I cast fireball!"

"Please, stop helping."


((Sorry, that is what went through my head as I was reading this vignette.))

[Andezzar]

Why not? What's important is that everyone on the table has fun.At least the DM is not having fun, if he makes it too easy for the PCs. If everything was going fine he would not have asked if he really should pull the punches.


Some players play the game for tactical challenges, some play it for the story and roleplaying, some play it to relax and unwind. A good DM should recognize what his players want from the game and cater to them instead of punishing them.

A problem arises when the DM really wants to run the game one way, while the players want to play it the other way. Some kind of agreement has to be reached in such a case - OOC communication is the key to a good game!I agree.

[AvatarVecna]

Let me preface this with: Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. Stupid is knowing better and doing it anyways.

Figure out which category your players fall in.
Teach the ignorant. Punish the stupid.

Do you mind if I quote this in my sig?

[AvatarVecna]

While I agree that, in this case, the DM was over-optimizing and threw extremely difficult fights at his players, in general, a consensus must be reached.

The players came to the table with fairly effective characters (one of whom was abusing the AC rules and thought himself "invincible" because of it), and were expecting a lenient DM who would let them curb stomp the competition into dust for their personal power fantasy. And there's nothing wrong with that kind of game.

The DM came to the table knowing the characters where effective, knowing the players were experienced, and thought they'd be able to handle some higher-level tactical situations. And there's nothing wrong with that kind of game.

But lack of communication between players and DM isn't fun for anybody. In this case, the players used terrible tactics in fights the DM made overly difficult. Neither party is fully to blame; it's the lack of communication on everybody's part. A game style must be agreed upon, or no one will have fun.

[Curmudgeon]

According to the OP, these are seasoned players who have DMed in the past. They know the system. It sounds more like they need to learn that there are consequences for action.
I would have to agree. 20% of encounters, on average, are supposed to be higher than party level (Table 3–2: Encounter Difficulty on page 49 of Dungeon Master's Guide). Seasoned players really should be able to assess an encounter and either use better tactics or have their PCs opt to run away.

[PaucaTerrorem]

Do you mind if I quote this in my sig?

Happily. Been my motto for years. There's nothing wrong with ignorance. We are all ignorant in more than one way. You just need to be taught. However, if you're gonna jump onto jagged rocks from 80' up after learning about physics, you're stupid and I really don't care for you.

[heavyfuel]

Ok, this post is for questions that arised. Later, when I have more time, I'll give every one a proper answer... It seems the vast majority think that trial by fire is the way to go, but I'd like to address both viewpoints in said post.


The first encounter was not equal level. The party level is 9.2 and the Encounter Level 12. That makes it a very difficult encounter. And if handled stupidly such encounters are expected to result in casualties. I cannot calculate the second encounter because you did not give a CR for the mook.

Where those just whirling Frenzy Barbarians or Spiritual Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarians? All stupid tactics aside the latter is pretty high on the optimization scale of melee characters. What does the party look like besides the crusader?




Party level: 9.2. When split, party level is 7.2.




I'm curious as to how you got 9.2. Isn't Effective Party Level was calculated (assuming everyone is equal level):
# of players*level/4. Adding about +1 since they use 32PB (vs the barbarians Elite Array)?

That seems pretty fair to me, party is effectively lv13 and encounter is CR12. An easy-ish encounter. As for the many-mook encounters, I don't remember their exact configuration, but it was something like 35 lv1, 8 lv2.

A party of 6 with better ability-scores, better equipment and two casters should be able to take out the party of 5 with slightly lower levels, no magic, and lower point-buy without that much difficulty.

They were just whirling frenzy barbs, nothing else. The party is a 2H Fighter, Archer Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard (going Gish) and said Crusader


I am curious as to what the spellcasters did prepare, especially considering there's both a cleric and a wizard of level 8 and you said they have no AoE spells. Those two may very well need to be assisted in understanding their spell list a bit better; at 8th level, the wizard should be using things like solid fog, Evard's black tentacles, stinking cloud, and so on in a situation with that many enemies, and that's just considering SRD spells.

Both really like buff spells. Cleric also has lots of healing (not HP healing) spells and single target debuff. He also REALLY likes spiritual weapon, by far his favourite spell. As for the wizard, he's going Gish, so most of his limited spell slots are used for buff, swift action spells like wraithstrike, and rays. I'm not sure, but I don't even think he has something like black tentacles in his spellbook.


Additionally, the Archer went in first? I'm sorry but the archer should never be first anywhere, hes the definition of not first, and even if his player doesn't know this the Character should.

In his defense, he did have the most HP at the time (because the players are too cheap to use a few charges from the wand of CLW I gave them)


Why did the enemies all have their bows up and ready? Were they just standing there, holding drawn bows? Even if the party was making noise, how were the enemies supposed to know the party weren't other bad guys (i.e. allies of the archers)?

That's what tanks are supposed to do... (Run into battle, not think they are immortal.) Also, you knew what the barbarians were; the crusader did not.

How were LVL 1 and 2 mooks hitting LVL 8 PCs consistently enough and hard enough to cause that much damage?

So what did they do?

I think you have fallen for two issues I've seen a lot. First, since you know the whole situation, you forget that the players do not. Second, as much as I love this forum, it encourages more optimization than a lot of players ever use. The crusader is an example of both of these.

Your players complain that your encounters are too hard. There's a reason for this. Your encounters are too hard for the optimization level your players are on. You have two options - slowly work with them to raise the optimization level, or lower yours to fit with your group.

The PCs were tackling on an organized crime faction. It was made very clear to them that the faction in question used pass phrases to identify each other. The players even got their hands on one of the phrases and managed to "convince" the guards in the city's entrance to let them go inside with their weapons. They were with their bow pointed at the door because the guys in full plate aren't really quiet, and without a pass phrase, the people behind the door were clearly not allies.

Except the crusader did know. We have this inside joke of sorts that whenever a barbarian rages, his eyes get bloodshot and they let out a bestial roar. They raged right after firing the first arrows. He probably didn't realize they were Whirling Frenzy ones (despite me saying that they had become more agile) until he got attacked 3 times by each one of them.

Aid another by the fighters so that the rogues could hit while flanking. Also, the Concentrated Volley of Arrows from Heroes of Battle did quite the damage to them, even if unreliably.

The wizard-gish threw some buffs on himself and dove in. The cleric also went it to help tanking and would use Spiritual Weapon almost every round (he ended the encounter with 5 of them IIRC)

Only they did know the situation (at least for the second encounter). They had scouted before and knew what would happen, still went in anyway. Even for the first encounter, if they don't know whats behind a door, the solution shouldn't be "send the archer to break down the door".

They are optimized finely. They have good equipment, and feats. The only two that aren't as optimized are the cleric and wizard. The cleric did say that he didn't want to go clerizilla and wanted to use his favorite spells (spiritual weapon) in combat, and the wizard is more of a melee monster/glass canon. He has like 40 HP and low-ish AC, but deals more single target damage than anyone else (2H Power attack, Know devotion, wraithstrike, spellstoring sword)

[SinsI]

I'm curious as to how you got 9.2. Isn't Effective Party Level was calculated (assuming everyone is equal level):
# of players*level/4. Adding about +1 since they use 32PB (vs the barbarians Elite Array)?
EPL is non-linear, you double the numbers for +2 in level.

Calculator (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/)

Your formula would've made 8 9th level players with 32 PB an Effective Party Level 20. Don't you find it a little bit unrealistic?


The party is a 2H Fighter, Archer Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard (going Gish) and said Crusader


Both really like buff spells. Cleric also has lots of healing (not HP healing) spells and single target debuff. He also REALLY likes spiritual weapon, by far his favourite spell. As for the wizard, he's going Gish, so most of his limited spell slots are used for buff, swift action spells like wraithstrike, and rays. I'm not sure, but I don't even think he has something like black tentacles in his spellbook.



Sounds like a very low-op party:
Fighters are Tier 5, Rogue Tier 3-4, Healbot cleric is Tier 3, Gish "Wizard" is Tier 4-5 (I really wish people stop calling them "wizards" ), Crusader is Tier 3.

Whirling Frenzy Barbarians are highly optimized melee machines. Being able to attack all together while the players have to go out the door one at a time also greatly increases the difficulty.

You say they had good equipment. What were the Armor classes for the tanks? At level 8, AC 28 is standard (+10 Full plate+2, +4 Shield+2, +1 Dex, +1 Dodge, +1 Deflection, +1 Natural, total worth 13,520 gp )

[Kesnit]

According to the OP, these are seasoned players who have DMed in the past. They know the system. It sounds more like they need to learn that there are consequences for action.

Just because they have played and DMed doesn't mean they know how to optimize. I played in a game with a DM who has been running 3.0/3.5 since it came out. He knew nothing of optimization, and nor did most of the players in his game. (My wife and I were the only exceptions.) For example, one of the PCs had levels in Expert.

[Flashy]

For example, one of the PCs had levels in Expert.

Yeesh, I'm normally like the most anti-optimization person in the universe but still there's a limit.

[Tvtyrant]

I like and am using the conviction system whereby an individual does not die from being knocked down below 0, but once they drop below -10 they are in a coma for the next 8 hours and cannot be awakened, even by magical healing. If there is a party wipe they all die still, but this alleviates some of the rocket tag issues.

[Dimers]

Armchair psychology says your players are there to relax and feel powerful, not to be tactical masterminds (... or tactical experts ... or tactically competent in the least bit). Figure out what kind of game you and the players can all enjoy simultaneously, and play that.

Be aware that many people won't want to admit they like an easy win, so asking directly might not be a great idea.

[heavyfuel]

Ok, so I read all of the answers, and had some time to think and consider each solution presented.

The very first think I'd like to address is that what I consider a medium difficulty combat is different from the game's definition of a medium difficulty encounter. I had a very bad formula in my head for calculating party level that didn't match, at all, the actual formula. I took a look, and experimented with the calculator (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/), and while I think it's kindda BS that 3 CR7 (with lower pointbuy, worse equipment and not as optimized) guys are a "Very Difficult" encounter for my group of 6 ECL8, I will keep their REAL party level in mind from now on. (Even if I "played" the battle beforehand when preparing it to adjust its difficulty, and it went fine without a hitch)

Another point, and the only one that seems unanimous, is that I shouldn't fudge the rolls. Play everything out in the open and let the players see their incompetence lack of tactics are the ones killing them, and not me. How do you guys do that? Won't the players metagame the hell out of every roll? "Oh, he rolled an 8 and hit me, since he has X class feature, that means he's lv 7 with 5 BAB, and since my AC is Y, that means he has a Dex of Z!" kind of thing. I don't want that behavior in my table, and actively punish people that metagame explicitly, though I can't stop them from doing it inside their heads.

Now, for the solutions presented. The first and most suggested one is kill 'em all, another is teach them better tactics, then there is talking to them OOC, and finally, lowering the difficulty.

Letting the PCs die:

I don't really like this for one reason and one reason alone. My players freaking love their characters... Seriously, the Cleric's, the Rogue's and the Wizard's affection with their characters are... concerning. They all gave them beautiful backstories and all have great plans for the future in the form of a personal quest. They roleplay their chars like an extension of themselves and if fun really is the essence of play, killing them would be anything but.

This is the "plot armor" I mentioned in my first post. I don't WANT to kill them. Hell, this is the probably half the reason I started this thread.

I understand that they'll have to die if they do something really incredibly stupid, but I don't want them to die in a simple combat because they couldn't think of a decent strategy. Is this wrong?

Teaching them:

Did that already. Said from the very beginning that I'd really like for them to fight smart instead of fighting hard. Said that because I plan on having the campaign end with them at lv11, full attacking things until they stop moving won't be able to solve every encounter like it was in the previous campaign (The last one we played until lv20 with me as a player. Encounters revolved around rolling 5 to 8 d20s per round and asking how many hit and if the guy was dead yet.)

I said that because their level won't be really high, they should ALWAYS consider escaping. That enemies wouldn't be fighting like dumb brutes, but would instead crowd control them, use cover, concealment and spells to make fights winable for them. I then proceeded to teach them about all these nuances of the game that many didn't understand fully. On more than one occasion I had weaker enemies make use of things like choke points and traps to even the odds, but they still think the best idea is to go for a full frontal assault every single time...

I've read once that when DMing, you shouldn't focus on a solution... You should create a problem, and let the players figure out the solution. Well, their solution is always "I go in, with my weapon drawn while screaming 'DIIIIIIEEEE MOTHERF******!!!!!!!'"

Which leads me to....

Talking to them OCC

Will do this next game-night. Also, will try to belittle them as little as possible... No promises though, remember that these are the guys that when facing a group of 7 enemies at some point had done single target damage to 5 of them and that I'm only human.

Lowering the Difficulty

Maybe this solves all. Maybe it doesn't do anything. The major complaint I had with the previous campaign I mentioned was the utter lack of challenge. I think my character became got to negative HP once, maybe twice, in a game where we started at lv1 and went all the way to lv20. He also never died, except for the one time I committed suicide because I decided to punch the huge fire elemental to death while in deathless rage. When the major good guy warned us not to go to a certain place or we would die, our reaction was "Ok, I go there!". We faced and killed our first epic creature without breaking a sweat (we were lv 16 I think).

I don't know about other players, but I find the CR appropriate encounter were you spend 20% of resources to be not an average difficulty encounter, but an incredibly easy and boring one.

Still, I'll experiment with lower difficulty encounters and see if they get me and the party anywhere.

-----------------------------------------

Thanks for all the answers everyone!

[some guy]

Another point, and the only one that seems unanimous, is that I shouldn't fudge the rolls. Play everything out in the open and let the players see their incompetence lack of tactics are the ones killing them, and not me. How do you guys do that? Won't the players metagame the hell out of every roll? "Oh, he rolled an 8 and hit me, since he has X class feature, that means he's lv 7 with 5 BAB, and since my AC is Y, that means he has a Dex of Z!" kind of thing. I don't want that behavior in my table, and actively punish people that metagame explicitly, though I can't stop them from doing it inside their heads.

Yeah, this might be metagaming. But on the other hand; the pc's in your game are level 8. They've fought countless times and lived; they're skilled in combat. That means the characters would have a good insight in what kind of challenge their opponents offer. It's easy to know for a pc that a dragon or giant would be extremely dangerous and it might be good idea to retreat, but a human with a sword? That human might be a wimp or the greatest swordmaster in existence. But if you see that human hit you on 5 and deal 17 damage while the dm rolled a 2, the player knows it might be a good idea to retreat or play more cautiously. The character might know this because he/she is level 8 and being level 8 means you're a tough bastard who knows his/her way around battles.
It's metagaming, but the characters could have access to this information through their experience and training. Your players will have more information to base their decisions on (an important thing in rpg's) and can use this information to survive. Not all metagaming is bad metagaming. This will allow you to keep fights dangerous but offer your players more information so they can make informed decisions.

[NichG]

Why not experiment with explicit but incomplete plot armor?

Do some handwavy reason why they all come back from the dead if killed, gear included even. Then run lots of scenarios where there are secondary goals that can be failed if they get themselves killed or even perform poorly. Start with these being rewards for success rather than punishments for failure. (Since the campaign is underway, I can't really suggest how to explain it IC without breaking your cosmology, but this kind of gimmick is good for campaigns that can afford to be a little meta). For a concrete example, I ran a campaign once where whenever any PC died the timeline shattered and they found themselves in a slightly different timeline just before the event that killed the PC. It was disruptive enough to find that e.g. that NPC you really liked now doesn't remember you or that country you were trying to save now never existed so that the players tried to avoid PC death, but it also gave them a gimmick to play with and take risks with (and then later they faced an enemy using the same gimmick and had to figure out how to win without killing).

Basically, they get what they want, they can do stupid stuff like bring down a building on their head or full attack things until they get pasted, but at the same time you give them a less stressful reason to try to improve. Maybe some of them will go for the 'achievements' associated with those secondary goals and will learn how to play a smarter game to pursue that.

[LordBlades]

Another point, and the only one that seems unanimous, is that I shouldn't fudge the rolls. Play everything out in the open and let the players see their incompetence lack of tactics are the ones killing them, and not me. How do you guys do that? Won't the players metagame the hell out of every roll? "Oh, he rolled an 8 and hit me, since he has X class feature, that means he's lv 7 with 5 BAB, and since my AC is Y, that means he has a Dex of Z!" kind of thing. I don't want that behavior in my table, and actively punish people that metagame explicitly, though I can't stop them from doing it inside their heads.


So what if they realize (roughly, a fighter 5 with 16 str hits just as often as a fighter 3 with 20 str) their opponent's level? It's not it also hands them an 'I win' button or something.

Personally, I feel some degree of metagaming is both unavoidable and good. Unavoidable because, as players play more, they start learning typical opponents, so they'd become more and more able to gauge how hard an encounter is and act accordingly (after about 10 years of D&D 3.5 I and quite a few others in my group can roughly predict the result of an encounter with standard monsters before it starts and be right 90% of the time). Good because often players play characters more experienced and smarter than themselves. Since you often can't outhink your character as you lack both 10+ years of adventuring experience and/or 20+ int/wis, easiest way to make the kind of good decisions your character would make is out-know him.

[Esgath]

Ok, so I read all of the answers, and had some time to think and consider each solution presented.

The very first think I'd like to address is that what I consider a medium difficulty combat is different from the game's definition of a medium difficulty encounter. I had a very bad formula in my head for calculating party level that didn't match, at all, the actual formula. I took a look, and experimented with the calculator (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/), and while I think it's kindda BS that 3 CR7 (with lower pointbuy, worse equipment and not as optimized) guys are a "Very Difficult" encounter for my group of 6 ECL8, I will keep their REAL party level in mind from now on. (Even if I "played" the battle beforehand when preparing it to adjust its difficulty, and it went fine without a hitch)

The calculator should just be a guideline. To gauge how hard actual encounter is you have to take in the environment, and consider the success rate and number of actions available to the enemies and the party.



Another point, and the only one that seems unanimous, is that I shouldn't fudge the rolls. Play everything out in the open and let the players see their incompetence lack of tactics are the ones killing them, and not me. How do you guys do that? Won't the players metagame the hell out of every roll? "Oh, he rolled an 8 and hit me, since he has X class feature, that means he's lv 7 with 5 BAB, and since my AC is Y, that means he has a Dex of Z!" kind of thing. I don't want that behavior in my table, and actively punish people that metagame explicitly, though I can't stop them from doing it inside their heads.

"Ok fine, you have shown you are capable of basic math. Now mark off those 26 hitpoints from your character will you?" Metagaming takes place every time you play, even if you don't recognize it and in some cases it is downright needed. Now it's one thing when the guy with power attack who sees his comrades rolling high and still missing, will not power attack much if it's his turn and vice versa. It's another thing if one of the guys starts talking about how exactly the enemies special qualities function when he clearly has no ingame justification for such knowledge. That's what knowledge skills and special spells are for. But it doesn't strike to me, that your players have such deep knowledge about D&D.

Fudging rolls also doesn't solve any of your problems, it just worsens them because they got away with their stupid behavior and there is no reason why they shouldn't do it again. Also it's a matter of honesty between all players to play fair, no special treatments for anyone. Often DMs who fudge their rolls to the benefit of the party when it suits their needs will also fudge them to the detriment of the party when it suits their needs. One will be justified by the other. Do their decisions at that point really influence anything?



Letting the PCs die:

I don't really like this for one reason and one reason alone. My players freaking love their characters... Seriously, the Cleric's, the Rogue's and the Wizard's affection with their characters are... concerning. They all gave them beautiful backstories and all have great plans for the future in the form of a personal quest. They roleplay their chars like an extension of themselves and if fun really is the essence of play, killing them would be anything but.

This is the "plot armor" I mentioned in my first post. I don't WANT to kill them. Hell, this is the probably half the reason I started this thread.

I understand that they'll have to die if they do something really incredibly stupid, but I don't want them to die in a simple combat because they couldn't think of a decent strategy. Is this wrong?

Yes. If you want to have a dangerous world, where you can't just charge in everytime you please, then you have to make some consequences. Dying in D&D isn't that bad after all, it's more like a slap on the wrist unless it is a complete party wipeout. They are level 8, they should have the resources to resurrect someone.



Teaching them:

Did that already. Said from the very beginning that I'd really like for them to fight smart instead of fighting hard. Said that because I plan on having the campaign end with them at lv11, full attacking things until they stop moving won't be able to solve every encounter like it was in the previous campaign (The last one we played until lv20 with me as a player. Encounters revolved around rolling 5 to 8 d20s per round and asking how many hit and if the guy was dead yet.)

I said that because their level won't be really high, they should ALWAYS consider escaping. That enemies wouldn't be fighting like dumb brutes, but would instead crowd control them, use cover, concealment and spells to make fights winable for them. I then proceeded to teach them about all these nuances of the game that many didn't understand fully. On more than one occasion I had weaker enemies make use of things like choke points and traps to even the odds, but they still think the best idea is to go for a full frontal assault every single time...

I've read once that when DMing, you shouldn't focus on a solution... You should create a problem, and let the players figure out the solution. Well, their solution is always "I go in, with my weapon drawn while screaming 'DIIIIIIEEEE MOTHERF******!!!!!!!'"

Well, it seems like you used your tactics like you told them, but then did make the error of fudging the rolls so their dumb brute behavior succeeded despite what should have happened. It's all in the spirit of: "If a stupid tactic works, it wasn't stupid!"



Lowering the Difficulty

Maybe this solves all. Maybe it doesn't do anything. The major complaint I had with the previous campaign I mentioned was the utter lack of challenge. I think my character became got to negative HP once, maybe twice, in a game where we started at lv1 and went all the way to lv20. He also never died, except for the one time I committed suicide because I decided to punch the huge fire elemental to death while in deathless rage. When the major good guy warned us not to go to a certain place or we would die, our reaction was "Ok, I go there!". We faced and killed our first epic creature without breaking a sweat (we were lv 16 I think).

I don't know about other players, but I find the CR appropriate encounter were you spend 20% of resources to be not an average difficulty encounter, but an incredibly easy and boring one.

Have you ever done something like throwing a god wizard after them? A guy with abrupt jaunt and sculpt spell, that just plasters everything with sculpted grease and cloud of bewilderment, stone walls, solid fog, evard's and has 2 guys as melee backup which have the spellguard ring so they aren't affected by the wizards spells. Such an encounter doesn't have to be really dangerous, but can be damn annoying if you just want to "charge in". Depending on the melee capability of the two guards, you can adjust the difficulty of the encounter. Let them be trippers and after a while your players will have to think how to encounter them or their hp will be chipped away bit by bit. On the plus side, you can reuse the wizard if he teleports out when he is threatened and the spellguard rings cannot be used because the wizard has both of the other half of them.

[Killer Angel]

Teaching them:

Did that already. Said from the very beginning that I'd really like for them to fight smart instead of fighting hard. Said that because I plan on having the campaign end with them at lv11, full attacking things until they stop moving won't be able to solve every encounter like it was in the previous campaign (The last one we played until lv20 with me as a player. Encounters revolved around rolling 5 to 8 d20s per round and asking how many hit and if the guy was dead yet.)

I said that because their level won't be really high, they should ALWAYS consider escaping. That enemies wouldn't be fighting like dumb brutes, but would instead crowd control them, use cover, concealment and spells to make fights winable for them. I then proceeded to teach them about all these nuances of the game that many didn't understand fully. On more than one occasion I had weaker enemies make use of things like choke points and traps to even the odds, but they still think the best idea is to go for a full frontal assault every single time...

I've read once that when DMing, you shouldn't focus on a solution... You should create a problem, and let the players figure out the solution. Well, their solution is always "I go in, with my weapon drawn while screaming 'DIIIIIIEEEE MOTHERF******!!!!!!!'"



:smallsigh:
So, it appears the best solution didn't worked.

In this case... teach yourself. No more fudging and learn that, sometimes, you cannot save the PCs. Who knows? maybe after some deaths, they'll start to be, at least, a little more careful.

[Dimers]

Won't the players metagame the hell out of every roll? "Oh, he rolled an 8 and hit me, since he has X class feature, that means he's lv 7 with 5 BAB, and since my AC is Y, that means he has a Dex of Z!" kind of thing.

Your players can't understand "don't put the archer in front and don't charge into ridiculously bad odds", but they can crunch numbers in their heads like that?

That's the difference between Wisdom and Intelligence, right there. Gotta say, I wish I were better with calculations and optimization, but I'm glad I can recognize a bad idea before it smacks me in the face.

[Azraile]

thats ok... this happened in a game I was in:


I was in a mutants and masterminds variant

We ended up fighting this masive Lavos like thing that dug it's way up from the core of the planet.. O.O

After beating it, me playing a smart char was like holy #@%@#$....

He looked down ran some scans and said "Holy %%@@%, this ... this is a bore hole..."

they were like.... so what?

"It's the key to providing near limitless power to the entire western hemisphere."

The not so smart, and curently drunk power house of the group imideatly said. "THAT POWERS MINE!!!!" and jumped in the bore hole.....

........

x.x

[prufock]

I think it's kindda BS that 3 CR7 (with lower pointbuy, worse equipment and not as optimized) guys are a "Very Difficult" encounter for my group of 6 ECL8

Think about it this way: an even-leveled encounter (in your case, EL 9) should use up about 1/4 of a party's resources - hit points, spells, consumable items, etc. Usually there is a low chance of any PC dying, unless they do something dumb or get really unlucky (or alternately, the enemies focus attacks on one PC or get really lucky).

"Very difficult" means that there is a more even chance that one character may die, and you will use more than 1/4 of your daily resources. Encounter level 10 (3 CR 7s) could be 3 eight-headed hydras, 3 young red dragons, 3 invisible stalkers, 3 hill giants, 3 bulettes, 3 aboleths, 3 gargantuan animated objects, etc. One or more character deaths in such an encounter is certainly possible.

[ericgrau]

Eh, hindsight is 20:20 and it always seems easier to the DM who knows all. Lower the CR slightly but keep playing foes smart and don't pull any punches. Later you can raise the difficulty some. With practice they'll get a better idea of what to expect and better prep. But they still won't be psychic, and you should only expect general precautions not the precise counter to whatever you throw at them.

[Kafros]

If you want to make them play smart then how about overcoming them with a rediculously underpowering encounter on which they were warned sufficiently. EG. I had mine meet a lich the lich had to ally with the group to escape a pocket plane but it so happened the key to the exit to be the lich's head. The lich had 1 spell prepared and used it then they easily overcame it. In its possetion they found its spellbook which had 3 spells in it majic Jar, simulacrum and clone. The group levelf was 15 gestalt the lich was a 17 wizard not gestalt elite array. I gave them the spellbook exactly so they could prepare for it when the lich regenerated itself (liches come back 1 week after being slain) this time it was to come with a vengeance.
To my suprize.... they did not prepare even a protection from evil spell going angainst an opponet with magic jar so after the lich possessed 1 of them and casted reverse gravity to incapacitate the whole group in the suprise round then proceeded to keep possesing and repossesing them till half the group was dead... Then when they asked how it did it I told them you got its spellbook? Well the encounter did have the intended effect the players bought magic defences and prepared for some magical encounters. one of them bought a belt of death ward, other bought an activation item for antimagic field. and so on. When they raided the liche's sanctuary the lich did not stand a chance. And that was with me possesing magic jar and telekineting tons of alchemy fire potions on them from random zombies the lich had raised.
Also since they are getting mid level you could give them some cohorts. And instead of them dying have the cohorts dying in their stead sooner or later they ll decide to find a way to protect the npcs associated with them.

[Trebloc]

Letting the PCs die:

I don't really like this for one reason and one reason alone. My players freaking love their characters... Seriously, the Cleric's, the Rogue's and the Wizard's affection with their characters are... concerning. They all gave them beautiful backstories and all have great plans for the future in the form of a personal quest. They roleplay their chars like an extension of themselves and if fun really is the essence of play, killing them would be anything but.


Do you feel that instead of playing a game, you basically are reading them a story instead is more fun? There is no fear of PC death, why bother rolling for combat at all? Hand them their bag of goodies, pat them on their bottom and say they killed the bad guys, and skip the rolling because it doesn't matter.

OR, put the fear of death in them. That should be part of what makes the game fun. Sure, your PC gets XP and gear, roleplays with tavern wenches and noble lords. And when they are duking it out in combat, there is a chance they might just kick the bucket. Sometimes that death might come from bad luck, sometimes a PC will be outsmarted, sometimes the baddies will be too tough and sometimes the PCs will do something really dumb. All of that should be fun, because the fun is in the challenge.

[heavyfuel]

Armchair psychology says your players are there to relax and feel powerful, not to be tactical masterminds (... or tactical experts ... or tactically competent in the least bit). Figure out what kind of game you and the players can all enjoy simultaneously, and play that.

Be aware that many people won't want to admit they like an easy win, so asking directly might not be a great idea.

Honestly, that's not the kind of game that I'd like to DM. It may be a self centered thing to say, but it's the truth... If all I do is throw easy monsters for them to beat 'em to pulp, I won't be having fun, and I think that neither will they.

I do this every now and then, like in a previous campaign I had a guy with the Supreme Cleave or whatever ability and he basically got to kill 20+ enemies per attack. It was fun for a few rounds, but eventually he just said "Uhhh, can I just kill all of them and get this over with?".

Doesn't everyone that plays D&D does so to be a badass? Only I think that being a badass doesn't mean killing mooks by the hundreds, but actually taking down that demon four times your sizes. I know that different people play for different reasons, but the look of sheer joy on their faces when they finally manage to bring down a threat is enough to make me think that their definition of being a badass isn't that distant to mine.


Your players can't understand "don't put the archer in front and don't charge into ridiculously bad odds", but they can crunch numbers in their heads like that?

That's the difference between Wisdom and Intelligence, right there. Gotta say, I wish I were better with calculations and optimization, but I'm glad I can recognize a bad idea before it smacks me in the face.


Yup... While they can be pretty book smart, I'm 99% positive that if they were D&D Chars they'd have a penalty to Wis haha.


:smallsigh:
So, it appears the best solution didn't worked.

In this case... teach yourself. No more fudging and learn that, sometimes, you cannot save the PCs. Who knows? maybe after some deaths, they'll start to be, at least, a little more careful.



"Ok fine, you have shown you are capable of basic math. Now mark off those 26 hitpoints from your character will you?" Metagaming takes place every time you play, even if you don't recognize it and in some cases it is downright needed. Now it's one thing when the guy with power attack who sees his comrades rolling high and still missing, will not power attack much if it's his turn and vice versa. It's another thing if one of the guys starts talking about how exactly the enemies special qualities function when he clearly has no ingame justification for such knowledge. That's what knowledge skills and special spells are for. But it doesn't strike to me, that your players have such deep knowledge about D&D.

Fudging rolls also doesn't solve any of your problems, it just worsens them because they got away with their stupid behavior and there is no reason why they shouldn't do it again. Also it's a matter of honesty between all players to play fair, no special treatments for anyone. Often DMs who fudge their rolls to the benefit of the party when it suits their needs will also fudge them to the detriment of the party when it suits their needs. One will be justified by the other. Do their decisions at that point really influence anything?

Well, it seems like you used your tactics like you told them, but then did make the error of fudging the rolls so their dumb brute behavior succeeded despite what should have happened. It's all in the spirit of: "If a stupid tactic works, it wasn't stupid!"



So what if they realize (roughly, a fighter 5 with 16 str hits just as often as a fighter 3 with 20 str) their opponent's level? It's not it also hands them an 'I win' button or something.

Personally, I feel some degree of metagaming is both unavoidable and good. Unavoidable because, as players play more, they start learning typical opponents, so they'd become more and more able to gauge how hard an encounter is and act accordingly (after about 10 years of D&D 3.5 I and quite a few others in my group can roughly predict the result of an encounter with standard monsters before it starts and be right 90% of the time). Good because often players play characters more experienced and smarter than themselves. Since you often can't outhink your character as you lack both 10+ years of adventuring experience and/or 20+ int/wis, easiest way to make the kind of good decisions your character would make is out-know him.


Yeah, this might be metagaming. But on the other hand; the pc's in your game are level 8. They've fought countless times and lived; they're skilled in combat. That means the characters would have a good insight in what kind of challenge their opponents offer. It's easy to know for a pc that a dragon or giant would be extremely dangerous and it might be good idea to retreat, but a human with a sword? That human might be a wimp or the greatest swordmaster in existence. But if you see that human hit you on 5 and deal 17 damage while the dm rolled a 2, the player knows it might be a good idea to retreat or play more cautiously. The character might know this because he/she is level 8 and being level 8 means you're a tough bastard who knows his/her way around battles.
It's metagaming, but the characters could have access to this information through their experience and training. Your players will have more information to base their decisions on (an important thing in rpg's) and can use this information to survive. Not all metagaming is bad metagaming. This will allow you to keep fights dangerous but offer your players more information so they can make informed decisions.

I see... I really didn't want to do this, but it does seem like the most reasonable option. I think I'll pit them against a group of kickass controllers (similar to Esgath's God Wizard idea) and see how they like them apples. On a similar note, I foresee more moaning about making them face trippers in my near future. Maybe the players are just whiners.



The calculator should just be a guideline. To gauge how hard actual encounter is you have to take in the environment, and consider the success rate and number of actions available to the enemies and the party.
Yes. If you want to have a dangerous world, where you can't just charge in everytime you please, then you have to make some consequences. Dying in D&D isn't that bad after all, it's more like a slap on the wrist unless it is a complete party wipeout. They are level 8, they should have the resources to resurrect someone.

Have you ever done something like throwing a god wizard after them? A guy with abrupt jaunt and sculpt spell, that just plasters everything with sculpted grease and cloud of bewilderment, stone walls, solid fog, evard's and has 2 guys as melee backup which have the spellguard ring so they aren't affected by the wizards spells. Such an encounter doesn't have to be really dangerous, but can be damn annoying if you just want to "charge in". Depending on the melee capability of the two guards, you can adjust the difficulty of the encounter. Let them be trippers and after a while your players will have to think how to encounter them or their hp will be chipped away bit by bit. On the plus side, you can reuse the wizard if he teleports out when he is threatened and the spellguard rings cannot be used because the wizard has both of the other half of them.

They don't really have the resources for a True Resurrection, and while a Raise Dead might do in a pinch, the unremovable negative level will probably be reason enough that the less roleplay focused character just re-roll, while the roleplay heavy ones will suck it up and lag a level behind.

No, I haven't done that... yet. As of right now I'm saving the badass wizard encounter for a later date. Throwing in some foreshadowing and whatnot. They'll learn soon enough that Wizard is in fact the best class in the game, and not freaking Monks. I mean, seriously, one has god-like powers, and the other can punch people (not that) hard. *sigh* At this point I think they only say these things to f*** with me, or at least I hope they do.


Why not experiment with explicit but incomplete plot armor?

Do some handwavy reason why they all come back from the dead if killed, gear included even. Then run lots of scenarios where there are secondary goals that can be failed if they get themselves killed or even perform poorly. Start with these being rewards for success rather than punishments for failure. (Since the campaign is underway, I can't really suggest how to explain it IC without breaking your cosmology, but this kind of gimmick is good for campaigns that can afford to be a little meta). For a concrete example, I ran a campaign once where whenever any PC died the timeline shattered and they found themselves in a slightly different timeline just before the event that killed the PC. It was disruptive enough to find that e.g. that NPC you really liked now doesn't remember you or that country you were trying to save now never existed so that the players tried to avoid PC death, but it also gave them a gimmick to play with and take risks with (and then later they faced an enemy using the same gimmick and had to figure out how to win without killing).

Basically, they get what they want, they can do stupid stuff like bring down a building on their head or full attack things until they get pasted, but at the same time you give them a less stressful reason to try to improve. Maybe some of them will go for the 'achievements' associated with those secondary goals and will learn how to play a smarter game to pursue that.

Thanks for the suggestion, but it really doesn't fit with the theme we have going on... Maybe on a future campaign I'll play around with this idea (because I'll admit that I loved it). I'm getting excited just thinking about it!

[Andezzar]

They don't really have the resources for a True Resurrection, and while a Raise Dead might do in a pinch, the unremovable negative level will probably be reason enough that the less roleplay focused character just re-roll, while the roleplay heavy ones will suck it up and lag a level behind.Revivify (SpC) is a 5th level spell that brings a creature back to life without level loss at -1 HP and stable, but you have to be quick to cast it. It only works within one round of the creature's death.

[Elkad]

Regarding rolling in the open. You can still fudge the bonuses, even "accidentally".

I had a giant L4 party (8 players plus a couple NPCs, animal companions, etc - adding up to 6.5 or so) wander into an area I didn't really want them in yet. Door guardians wouldn't have been terrible, but they'd already had couple rough fights (including a bunch of con drain from some lucky stirges), and had a good chance of getting trapped with no resources.

So first door guardian (CR7 Huge earth elemental, but can't leave it's patrol zone so they could just kill it with ranged) pops up, takes a whack at the AC25 guy up front. +19 to hit, but I roll a 6, which barely makes it. Player looks relieved when he sees the roll, thinking his AC held up. Instead of saying "he barely got you", with complete confidence I announce "Thirty-five, that hits right?" "Take 24 damage". They panicked and ran like hell. Had they not, on the next roll I would have corrected my "math error".

But instead it turned into a great RP event, with people yelling "Remember, you don't have to outrun the monster, you just have to outrun the sorcerer" (Str:6, and was in heavy encumbrance with a bunch of looted books) as they trampled one another, got jammed up in doorways, etc...


Regarding teaching.. Throw highly optimized low CR encounters at them to help them get the idea too. Put a BFC caster with good defenses dumping spells out a window or something, and a bunch of ineffective mooks to support him. Get the party slowed, entangled, etc while a horde of goblins try to roll nat20s for d3 damage. Don't let killing goblins solve the problem, there are always more goblins if they can't clear the crowd control. Idea is to not kill them, just keep them stuck in TarBaby until they either come up with some tactics or run out of resources and run away.

[Esgath]

Revivify (SpC) is a 5th level spell that brings a creature back to life without level loss at -1 HP and stable, but you have to be quick to cast it. It only works within one round of the creature's death.

That's what Revenance (SpC, 4th) is for. Now you have 1 round/level to revive a dead ally. Both spells as scrolls together are cheaper than one Raise Dead. And scrolls are really made for this kind of stuff, spells for important but rare occurrences.

I would like to give you an anecdote regarding teaching. You have said to them, that you would like them to fight smart, not hard. But maybe they can't do that because they really lack the system mastery necessary to do that. When our group first played D&D, I would have loved it, if someone really SHOWED us how to do it. I was playing the fighter and deliberately stayed out of everybody else's metier. Only our DM had experience with the 3rd edition and every fight felt like pulling teeth. He kept insisting that the encounters themselves weren't too hard for our group, and we should change how we engage in a fight. But he never exactly told us HOW. It would have been so much better if he would have just told us, that our casters should buff my character instead of hitting (cleric in 3.0 with a simple mace, yeah....) or explaining some uses for utility spells.

Maybe you need to have an encounter, where you literally take them by the hand and explain everything step by step. Or if you don't like that, give them advice how the last encounter could have been solved better and what you personally find important when preparing for the day. You have a certain expectation what is crucial and what is not, tell them.