When your DM realizes the enemy has a weakness so obvious that he has to change it.

[Snowbluff]

I'm interrogating a creature for some info on a big bad.

Me: "So the big bad wears a Robe of Eyes, huh. Out of Character, that item still blinds you if you hit it with some light, right?"

DM: "... Uh... Your character feels like your DM might have to change that because you'd make the fight to easy."

Too be fair, it wasn't his big bad and he knew it was probably going to be too easy and made a few other changes with that in mind. Still, I probably should have saved this trick and sprung it on the DM later. I deserve at least a lifetime supply of inspiration for this one. :smalltongue:

[darknite]

As a DM in that circumstance I would have it operate as a Robe of Eyes and the PCs could exploit that; but it would have some sort of duration/save/penalty-not-as-bad-as-blindness associated with it. The PCs should never know everything about everything when it comes to magic without access to more explicit knowledge.

[Snowbluff]

As a DM in that circumstance I would have it operate as a Robe of Eyes and the PCs could exploit that; but it would have some sort of duration/save/penalty-not-as-bad-as-blindness associated with it. The PCs should never know everything about everything when it comes to magic without access to more explicit knowledge.

To be fair, the person we were interrogating was an expert on magical items. The Robe of Eyes also lets you save at the end of each turn.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Nothing but disdain for DMs who decide to change the game once an encounter is begun. That's just playing against the party. There's almost always more than one way to win a conflict. A DM should delight in the unexpected. Many epic heros found a way instead of slogging into the prepared deathtrap planning to win a war of attrition.

[OgataiKhan]

It's so sad when DMs punish creative solutions

[Wryte]

It's so sad when DMs punish creative solutions

That's not punishing a creative solution. Punishing a creative solution would letting them do it and then going, "This robe has a special reflective property, so now you're blind instead."

This is adjusting an encounter so it's not mind-numbingly easy.

[darknite]

That's not punishing a creative solution. Punishing a creative solution would letting them do it and then going, "This robe has a special reflective property, so now you're blind instead."

This is adjusting an encounter so it's not mind-numbingly easy.

Agreed. Your job as a DM is to give the players a good game. If they have an edge, by all means let them have it, but keep the needs of the narrative in mind, too.

[tieren]

I think the problem here is the player applying meta-knowledge to cheese the encounter.

They should have to do an arcana check or continue the interrogation of the expert if they want to learn weaknesses, etc...

This isn't a clever solution, its cheating.

[Snowbluff]

That's not punishing a creative solution. Punishing a creative solution would letting them do it and then going, "This robe has a special reflective property, so now you're blind instead."

No this is the opposite. That's just punitive for your players trying to be clever with a strategy. Perhaps we should set arcane wards that everywhere if a rogue hides or a fighter tries to grapple. :smallyuk:

[Man_Over_Game]

That's not punishing a creative solution. Punishing a creative solution would letting them do it and then going, "This robe has a special reflective property, so now you're blind instead."

This is adjusting an encounter so it's not mind-numbingly easy.

A BBEG who uses an item like that would recognize the weaknesses of doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if the BBEG had some kind of other magic item to work around this weakness (maybe a stone that increases his Con saving throws?), or some kind of creature that enrages when exposed to bright light.

[Snowbluff]

A BBEG who uses an item like that would recognize the weaknesses of doing so. I wouldn't be surprised if the BBEG had some kind of other magic item to work around this weakness (maybe a stone that increases his Con saving throws?), or some kind of creature that enrages when exposed to bright light.

Obligatory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBs06ZXtMzo

[sithlordnergal]

Personally, I'd run it as is. If the players blind the baddie then they blind the baddie. Sometimes changing the narrative from an epic to a comedy can be great, and I am sure the players would find it hilarious if the baddie began stumbling around blind.

But it's also perfectly fair for the DM to change it

[Man_Over_Game]

Personally, I'd run it as is. If the players blind the baddie then they blind the baddie. Sometimes changing the narrative from an epic to a comedy can be great, and I am sure the players would find it hilarious if the baddie began stumbling around blind.

But it's also perfectly fair for the DM to change it

Not everyone would enjoy a Curse of Strahd campaign if Strahd ended as a punchline. The amount of drama and sacrifice to hit that point would have all been for a joke. Not saying it's not applicable here, I'm saying that sometimes that's not applicable.

I don't mean that against you or anything. Just saying it in defense to the OP's DM. I personally wouldn't have changed it, but I might have changed the BBEG to work around it.

[LudicSavant]

In the past when players came up with something that I hadn't thought of that completely bypassed my encounters... I just let it work, congratulate and reward them for their creative solution, and am aware of that tool for next time. So they win the day and move onto the next one, full of exciting new challenges.

My advice as a DM would be that you should be ready for your plans to be foiled, even if you think it's impossible to foil them.

[Segev]

It sounds to me like the difference between unfairly changing the encounter mid-fight and this is that this involves the DM and the players discussing the fight, and possibly giving some advice on how to set the fight's difficulty where they want it to be. It's not cool if done mid-fight, because at that point you're not really able to guage fair play vs. not and may as well adjust anything on the fly to ensure the fight lasts a certain number of rounds, or consumes a certain number of PC resources, and just end it when you're satisfied. No hp or even saves vs death; there's always enough and they always pass. Until the DM decides to narrate the loss of the BBEG.

[MaxWilson]

I'm interrogating a creature for some info on a big bad.

Me: "So the big bad wears a Robe of Eyes, huh. Out of Character, that item still blinds you if you hit it with some light, right?"

DM: "... Uh... Your character feels like your DM might have to change that because you'd make the fight to easy."

Too be fair, it wasn't his big bad and he knew it was probably going to be too easy and made a few other changes with that in mind. Still, I probably should have saved this trick and sprung it on the DM later. I deserve at least a lifetime supply of inspiration for this one. :smalltongue:

It's too bad your DM doesn't have a better poker face.

Me: "So the big bad wears a Robe of Eyes, huh. Out of Character, that item still blinds you if you hit it with some light, right?"

DM: "Yes, that's what you've heard. In theory it should be an exploitable weakness. If you ask the creature you're interrogating, it enthusiastically agrees and says, 'Yes, yes! Very valuable information! You give me much monies for this, yes yes? I get you more.'"

Even if he didn't change a single thing about the encounter, it helps maintain more dramatic tension if he avoids giving you his opinion about the bad guy's real capabilities instead of the opinion of the guy you're interrogating. (And it could be that the bad guy just counters the Light spell with Darkness or Dimension Door, if he happens to be a spellcaster, or taking off the robe or just having a good Con save--maybe your tactic won't work after all, and you don't know for sure until you try it! Risk is fun.)

[tieren]

or the BBEG could just have a familiar and look through its senses for a couple of rounds.

[Segev]

or the BBEG could just have a familiar and look through its senses for a couple of rounds.

A full minute, which likely is the whole rest of the combat. Also, that totally negates any darkvision, devil's sight, and the robe's own ability to see invisible things and into the ethereal plane.

[sithlordnergal]

Not everyone would enjoy a Curse of Strahd campaign if Strahd ended as a punchline. The amount of drama and sacrifice to hit that point would have all been for a joke. Not saying it's not applicable here, I'm saying that sometimes that's not applicable.

I don't mean that against you or anything. Just saying it in defense to the OP's DM. I personally wouldn't have changed it, but I might have changed the BBEG to work around it.

Oh yeah, it doesn't work for every campaign, and it really doesn't work for every baddie.

[MaxWilson]

or the BBEG could just have a familiar and look through its senses for a couple of rounds.

If you're referring to Find Familiar, that unfortunately costs an action, so it's useless in a fight unless you've got really good bonus actions, legendary actions, or reactions.


A full minute, which likely is the whole rest of the combat. Also, that totally negates any darkvision, devil's sight, and the robe's own ability to see invisible things and into the ethereal plane.

A full minute? I'm AFB but Role20 says you get a DC 11 or DC 15 Con save every turn to recover (depending). Roll20 is sometimes wrong--is it wrong about Robe of Eyes? https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Robe%20of%20Eyes#content

[Sigreid]

I've been known to change how an encounter plays out. Granted, usually because the players came up with something so unexpected and fantastic that even though I didn't initially plan for it to work it just HAD TO.