PDA

View Full Version : Ever met a optimized group of enemies?



Jamie Fameflame
2007-02-26, 08:10 PM
It all comes back to me...

I have been out of roleplaying for some time, but reading these threads made me remember...

We were playing a DnD(ish) game (low magic items, low combat, emphasis on role as opposed to roll), when we encountered a group of characters that wished to arrest us. They were ment to be a group of bounty hunters, and were only 3, whereas we were 5 players.

Anyways, as we refuse to let them take us into custody, they of course attacked. We didn't fear this, as we outnumbered them, and thought that we could take them on.

What we didn't know was that our GM had designed them to work together as a team, and our 5 characters were very individual!
They were a level or two higher than us, but the what really made the difference in this encounter was that they worked together so great!
In short, we only barely managed to claw a victory from them, and it was bloody work indeed. They got away as well, leaving us to wonder if we shouldn't have created our characters together, instead of each player going his own way :smallbiggrin:

It was adding insult to injury when our GM informed us of their magic equipment, the like of which we'd never dreamed of owning
(ehh... +1 sword and the like :smallsigh: ).
When we started whining about never gettin' any (magic items, that is), he just replied:

"If you had managed to beat them, you could have taken theirs"

:smallfurious:

Have any of you out there tried the same?

Gralamin
2007-02-26, 08:18 PM
optimized enemies?

*Gralamin sits down with a notebook*

One of the most optimized enemies I've ever seen is Count Strahd from Ravenloft.

Druid
2007-02-26, 08:22 PM
I'm the only one in my group with any talent for character optimization. In my group we don't have the normal power tiers based on class (full casters, full manifesters, skill monkeys, warrior types) but rather based on which player built and is playing each character. So to answer your question, no I've never played in a well optimized party. I've played in plenty of parties where I end up having to keep everyone else's worthless characters alive though.

marjan
2007-02-26, 08:23 PM
Well that is either crapy DMing or the DM wanted you to be taken into custody very bad so he thought that this is the best way. From his answer I guess that this would be the first one. I had similar DM to yours. We wer lvl 1, our first game of DnD , and we ended up in forest surrounded by 20 lvl 2 bandits after 10-15 minutes. I hope that this cheered you up a bit. If you all agreed to play heavy roleplay without much combat and he keeps doing things like this then you should just change DM (beleive me it is the easiest way since some of the DMs just love their NPCs too much to let them get hurt).

marjan
2007-02-26, 08:25 PM
If you want more examples of how my first DM tried to kill us feel free to ask.

I could go all night long.

Galathir
2007-02-26, 08:26 PM
In our games, we generally try to be as realistic as possible, so BBEG's haven't generally trained from day one to beat the party. Of course, they are generally a challenge, but they are rarely designed just to screw the party over.

On the other hand, sometimes randomness works against the party. We just fought a fiendish blue dragon that is immune to lightning. Our party is all sneaky sly characters with the exception of our damage dealer, a elemental savant specializing in electricity. Of course, blue dragons are immune to electricity, but the DM didn't pick a blue dragon with the party in mind. It was just there and we came across it.

Obviously, however, we design encounters and BBEG's to be challenging so they are optimized in some way, but not just to negate or override the party.

marjan
2007-02-26, 08:26 PM
I'm the only one in my group with any talent for character optimization. In my group we don't have the normal power tiers based on class (full casters, full manifesters, skill monkeys, warrior types) but rather based on which player built and is playing each character. So to answer your question, no I've never played in a well optimized party. I've played in plenty of parties where I end up having to keep everyone else's worthless characters alive though.

Preety much same thing with my group. Though our current DM ussualy knows when to be gentle (although not always).

Seffbasilisk
2007-02-26, 08:28 PM
I stopped optimizing enemies while DMing since an encounter that was supposed to be a CR two lower then their normal ended in a TPK. Crazy Halfling Assassin with wounding daggers....

JadedDM
2007-02-26, 08:30 PM
Well that is either crapy DMing or the DM wanted you to be taken into custody very bad so he thought that this is the best way.

Wait, what? So it's bad DMing to use good strategy and teamwork to nearly defeat a party that outnumbers you?

The Great Skenardo
2007-02-26, 08:31 PM
I see this question as a little deeper than a plot device designed to screw over PCs. I like how the OP noticed the extent to which teamwork can prove to make a group extremely effective.

It's less likely, of course, that the standard rag-tag group has had (IC) the years of training and learning each other's capabilities and careful balance exhibited by the bounty hunters, but it makes sense; a team of bounty hunters or an elite strike force of ninjas or even certain rival groups of adventurers are considered to have spent years training together, covering each others' weaknesses with a sense of unity that's often rare in a PC party. (We of the PC stripe tend to be notoriously self-centered)

I think that this sort of inspiration is actually pretty intriguing.

marjan
2007-02-26, 08:33 PM
Wait, what? So it's bad DMing to use good strategy and teamwork to nearly defeat a party that outnumbers you?

No, but it is bad DMing to put that in low combat campaign (and this is one if I'm not wrong) and then say something like "You can have better equipment when you grow "bigger" and kill things that are better than you".

Oh, and I didn't say it is the case but a possibility.

The Valiant Turtle
2007-02-26, 08:35 PM
I agree (or disagree depending on who you are), that sounds like nearly perfect DMing to me. It doesn't sound like they were purposely built to take down the party. They were just built to work well together. Furthurmore, it was obviously meant to be a very tough encounter, and it was, but the party survived, apparently with no actual deaths. That's what a tough encounter is supposed to do.

Of course the real questions is this: Was it fun?

Jack_Simth
2007-02-26, 08:38 PM
Well that is either crapy DMing or the DM wanted you to be taken into custody very bad so he thought that this is the best way. From his answer I guess that this would be the first one. I had similar DM to yours. We wer lvl 1, our first game of DnD , and we ended up in forest surrounded by 20 lvl 2 bandits after 10-15 minutes. I hope that this cheered you up a bit. If you all agreed to play heavy roleplay without much combat and he keeps doing things like this then you should just change DM (beleive me it is the easiest way since some of the DMs just love their NPCs too much to let them get hurt).

There is a third option, you know.

The DM could have been trying to give an example of the benefits of teamwork to a group of individuals, in the hopes of encouraging the party to give it a try, while not dictating any character builds.

Logos7
2007-02-26, 08:40 PM
Or Perhaps he was Trying to get the Team to Work together by showing how it benefits everyone.

I think some people hear role, and think Whatever Role I want, when in fact the role you play should be affected by the environs because otherwise you haven't created a character but a spunky goldfish.

Low Combat isn't the same as no combat, You can think whatever you want, But my opionion of those thoughts is probably gonna begin with B and end's in an italian pasta dish.

L

DaMullet
2007-02-26, 08:43 PM
Optimized? Never. BS-ingly cheat-tasticly powerful? Several times.

My former DM (back before I took over) was in the habit of giving NPCs all 18s for no reason. The wizard got hit with a Maximized Ray of Enfeeblement, and still had 12 Str. left. It was annoying, to say the least.

marjan
2007-02-26, 08:43 PM
There is a third option, you know.

The DM could have been trying to give an example of the benefits of teamwork to a group of individuals, in the hopes of encouraging the party to give it a try, while not dictating any character builds.

Yes that could be the option too. It's just that from my (limited) experience it is ussualy not that way. I might be wrong.

But anyway, how did you survive this: through use of strategy, luck or something else?

And by the sound of his answer I think my first option is the right one.

Swordguy
2007-02-26, 08:53 PM
I've stopped doing that, mainly because my parties like playing fighter-types who go up against casters in the Conan/LotR mode. If I do any optimization at all, they'll generally die.

A bad Example: (has to do with optimization RP rather than character builds)

A 2nd ed game , my players complained (at great length and vulgarity) that I wasn't playing villians "smart" enough to challenge them. So, when they came into the BBEG's (a very powerful wizard) town and started asking questions about his defenses in his favorite tavern, I ruled that that triggered Contingency scrying spells he had placed on the tavern. These spells alerted him the PCs were there. A night of scrying later, he learned the names and accomplishments of the PCs, and he ruled that the PCs did in fact pose a direct threat to him, though they were several levels lower than him.

As such, he summoned an efreet, and proceeded to spend the rest of the night bargaining with it. He then used the wishes gained to Wish the party, one-by-one, out of existence.

I have never had a group complain that casters aren't smart/powerful enough since.

Ted_Stryker
2007-02-26, 08:58 PM
"Optimized" means something different to me than "works well as a team". I have faced many foes that were competently designed, and worked well together, but far fewer (although not none) who had, say, some serious divine metamagic capabilities.

marjan
2007-02-26, 09:00 PM
When using group to show how teamwork is important you don' use a group that has greater chalenge rating than the party could easily deal with. And magic items don't count as a teamwork. If they all had +1 weapons that is probably 6000gp more in equipment then the party has. When you want to teach somebody how something should be done then you should use same resorces as that person has to get the job done.

Arbitrarity
2007-02-26, 09:05 PM
Optimized? Never. BS-ingly cheat-tasticly powerful? Several times.

My former DM (back before I took over) was in the habit of giving NPCs all 18s for no reason. The wizard got hit with a Maximized Ray of Enfeeblement, and still had 12 Str. left. It was annoying, to say the least.

That's... 21 or 22 str.


WCS, 24 str or so :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek:


Meh, our DM got conned by abuse of massive fights.
"We killed those 30 CR 2 drow, so we get the XP, though we only led the barrages!"

Now, of course, 40 guys is like CR 2. And drow are CR 1/2. With PC levels. :smalleek:

And that **** put us up against 200 drow at once. I forgot to get in the house, and got screwed over. By orcs with smart tactics :smallyuk: .

We then got deus ex machianad.

Then we learned the rank and file of a 500 man army was level 10, and gave up :smallyuk: :smalleek: :smallconfused:

krossbow
2007-02-26, 09:07 PM
Generally, if I want an enemy to be awsome, I just make them a ghestalt. Really makes the BBEG seem significant when he's able to whip out all this stuff on you, while simulataneously popping into melee with the fighter and stepping back to weave a few spells in.

Jamie Fameflame
2007-02-26, 09:20 PM
@ Marjan: He is actually quite the GM, can't say anything bad about him (other than he is cheap on Magic Items. But that just makes you love the few you've got :smallbiggrin: )

@ Ted_Stryker: You are probably correct, I meant to say that they were exceptionally good at team working, in my world that is "optimized". Their stats, knowing the GM, probably weren't that extraordinary.

@ Jack Simth: Even if that wasn't his intention, it worked that way :smalltongue:

Really, I liked the encounter a lot, and I believe that everyone in the group learned something from it. It wasn't monsters in fancy colours blasting you with supernatural half-godly powers, it was just a group of "adventurers" like we could have been. Notice also that none of us died, we were extremely hard pressed through the entire battle, and we had to come up with unconventional strategies in order to win the day. Heck, we even learned something from it!

Our group included a Monk/Rogue, a Paladdin/Fighter and worse combos than that. It really was 5 individuals, each with a great background story and all that, but I guess it showed us the unlocked potential in DnD characters...

As to them having (minor) magic gear, and us haven't, well, I probably like that better than slaying some 1-HD Goblins and then finding their magical equipment locked away in some chest, not used against the party (http://goblinscomic.com/) :smallwink:

I like to pry it from their cold, dead fingers.

JadedDM
2007-02-26, 09:28 PM
No, but it is bad DMing to put that in low combat campaign (and this is one if I'm not wrong) and then say something like "You can have better equipment when you grow "bigger" and kill things that are better than you".So you're saying a good DM doesn't make his players earn their magical loot but just...what? Hands it to them?


When using group to show how teamwork is important you don' use a group that has greater chalenge rating than the party could easily deal with. And magic items don't count as a teamwork. If they all had +1 weapons that is probably 6000gp more in equipment then the party has. When you want to teach somebody how something should be done then you should use same resorces as that person has to get the job done.You make it sound like the party was heavily out-matched. From what the original poster said, this is not true. The enemy were a 'a level or two' higher than the party, but there were also fewer of them (5 to 3). And having +1 weapons would give them--and correct me if I'm wrong here--a mere +1 to hit. That's not exactly devestating. I mean, having a +1 to hit can help in a fight, but it rarely means the difference between life and death.

From what I gather, the fight was tough largely because the enemy worked together and the PCs did not.

Arbitrarity
2007-02-26, 09:33 PM
Not even, +1 to damage. MW weaps give the +1 to hit, and overlap with the +1 enhancement :(.

marjan
2007-02-26, 09:36 PM
Then I apologize to your DM. This opnion is probably, as I said, because of my first DM.

Seatbelt
2007-02-26, 09:39 PM
As such, he summoned an efreet, and proceeded to spend the rest of the night bargaining with it. He then used the wishes gained to Wish the party, one-by-one, out of existence.

I have never had a group complain that casters aren't smart/powerful enough since.


You, sir, are an *******. But brilliant. :P

krossbow
2007-02-26, 09:39 PM
lets assume the party is level 10; then they'd be 3 level 13's (I am making an abstract statement with the level being held at constant 2 levels higher, to create a CR); by the DM guide, thats a little over a CR 14. So, if they are level or 2 under them, then that was a CR 2-3 over them. Add in the what passed for rare equipment, and I would of rated that as a CR 3-4 over them.


Thats a battle that should kill 1-2 characters; it should be very hard to not die. Now, they had 5 people, boosting their party; fair enough. The other party was also apparently created specifically to own the party, which evens out in my mind.

Levels mean a hell of a lot in D&D. I'd take a group of 10 opponents 2 levels below me than a group of 3 opponents 2 levels higher than me.
________
HONDA 1300 (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_1300)

marjan
2007-02-26, 09:44 PM
So you're saying a good DM doesn't make his players earn their magical loot but just...what? Hands it to them?

You make it sound like the party was heavily out-matched. From what the original poster said, this is not true. The enemy were a 'a level or two' higher than the party, but there were also fewer of them (5 to 3). And having +1 weapons would give them--and correct me if I'm wrong here--a mere +1 to hit. That's not exactly devestating. I mean, having a +1 to hit can help in a fight, but it rarely means the difference between life and death.

From what I gather, the fight was tough largely because the enemy worked together and the PCs did not.

I didn't say that Dm should just give it to them, but that the CR is a bit higher than they could handle with moderat effort and it can easily result in TPK, especialy if the players are not optimized for fighting. And the teamwork isn't all that made this encounter tough.
I admit that I was very harsh when I said that it is crapy DMing, but I don't think it was that good either.
Also, while +1 dmg doesn't allways mean the difference between life and death it could especialy since the CR was far above their level. And it is +1 dmg for three charcters.

JadedDM
2007-02-26, 09:57 PM
How would you even know what the CR is or if it was too high for them, when you don't know the party's levels nor the enemy's levels?

krossbow
2007-02-26, 10:02 PM
Here:
"They were a level or two higher than us"


It's a simple method of calculating CR.

You see, the cr amount over the parties level will always remain, no matter what level, as the opponents level is always 1-2 higher.


If they are all 1 level over them:

a little over 2 CR's higher than them.

if they are all 2 levels higher:

They are a little over 3 Cr's higher than them. Possibly moreso if the weapons were decidedly rare.

cupkeyk
2007-02-26, 10:07 PM
One time I made an enchanter with the cohort variant from UA. I made them such that they worked in perfect synergy. The cohort was a Swashbuckler/Rogue. Anyway. The DM asked me to "retire" them. He then made them come back as villains. I didn't mind, but they were really hard to beat. LOLz

cupkeyk
2007-02-26, 10:11 PM
I would also like to add an encounter we had with a Medusa Archer and a 2 Grimlock Barbarians. Insanely hard. The wizard was petrified the first round and everyone else had to manage with the Grimlocks with their eyes closed

Stevenson
2007-02-26, 10:16 PM
I personally never found the need. Stone drakes optomize themselves, really. This being said, when having actual NPCs for the players to fight, I get creative and quirky. This is hardly optomizing, but it's not randomly throwing book stats at people either. I make the teams use hair-brained tactics that the powerplayer would never consider, mostly because they are, to him at least, ineffective. While he's barking orders at flanking people (often the primary target of his flanking tactics have the feat where they can't be flanked. He's that predictable.), they've done some crazy tactic like, say, attacking from below (the gnom swashbuckler among them riding a burrowing thrum worm), which caught everybody off guard and made the combat more interesting. Not optimizing per se, but I think that it can be aggreed that it was an encounter that could have been easier.

Swordguy
2007-02-26, 10:20 PM
You, sir, are an *******. But brilliant. :P

That's about the same thing my PCs said.

After they stopped throwing things.

It's also the reason why I don't tend to run casters (especially Wizards!) as BBEGs. Really, somebody with a 20+ INT should be able to anticipate pretty much every strategy someone can use against them, and take proper precautions.

krossbow
2007-02-26, 10:31 PM
why I like using one's with charisma instead. Insane arrogant powerhouse.

LotharBot
2007-02-27, 03:42 PM
My wife once developed a group of bandits-for-hire that was hired to capture or kill my adventuring group (we were about level 7 at the time.) They had a halfling sorcerer act as a scout, about 500 feet up the road from the ambush, who would send a signal to his buddies to get ready for us. They had 3 rogue-archers and a sorcerer hiding up in the trees using poisoned weapons and stun-type spells, and the halfling sorcerer would come up behind us and throw random distracting spells our way.

Lucky for us, we spotted the scout, grappled him, and he blew a save on some sort of "tell us what you know" spell + intimidate check. Once we knew there was an ambush, we sent the melee types up the road just a little slower than normal while the rogue and wizard snuck through the trees. One "wall of fire" and some nasty sneak-attack arrows to the back later, the ambush was defeated. But it was very well conceived, and she used that group effectively in a later game (one of my brothers got captured; my other brother escaped to warn the group.)

Matthew
2007-02-27, 05:02 PM
Yes, I have used a group of Optimised NPCs.

Yes, most NPC groups I use are organised and compliment one another.

Quietus
2007-02-27, 05:18 PM
Medusa and grimlocks? Ooooh.... Q likes.

Helgraf
2007-02-28, 02:26 AM
Oh yes. One of the DMs I play with, the 'killer' DM uses optimized monster pairings quite frequently.

And I've used more than a few myself.

Converting old 1st Ed. modules to 3.0/3.5 and keeping the flavour of some of the more unusual encounters more or less required me to rebuild the NPCs/Monsters used to ensure they complimented one another well.

Incidentally, at Epic, you pretty much _have_ to optimize your monsters.