Is it okay to counter the party's tactics?

[hencook]

Let's say your players bought a cloak of invisibility and really go ham with it, sneaking around and killing everyone. Stuff gets really easy. As a DM, do you:


A) Start throwing in monsters that specifically counter invisibility, like tremorsense.
B) Have an encounter where many of the minions retreat, and one of them reports back in and says "They're using invisibility, we should counter them", and when the party fights a new faction, the new faction repeats this process as necessary.
C) Instead of countering the tactic specifically, add generally harder challenges.
D) Reward the player ingenuity and be more realistic about it; if the players aren't renown, then enemies aren't likely able to react to the tactic.
E) ____________!


I'm a fair GM. I'm a fan of pre-written modules because they are fair, in a sense. The modules are written without any knowledge on what my party will do to counter it. My games are not "The players versus the DM", it's more like I'm just a referee or CPU, and whether you win or lose, it's up to how you adapt to the module presented to you. I just don't really know what's fair to everyone, and it's kind of weird to just ask them.

[MrSandman]

By the time the PCs get access to invisibility, some level-appropriate challenges should have means to defend against it. Not using them is making encounters easier than they ought to be.

This is not to say that everyone should be able to counter invisibility, it's okay to put encounters that are streamrolled by it, but Blind Fight is a feat that an enemy can take at level 1 and gives them a second roll. Casters should know how effective invisibility is and have ways to counter it ready.

So, in short, maybe don't make them all immune to invisibility tactics, but it makes sense that enemies will have varying degrees of defence against them.

[Tvtyrant]

Depends on the enemy and situation. Everyone should have some sort of dog/detection pet around at any level of the game, it is just realistic. An opponent who knows about the party will specifically use things like invisibility purge, while a dinosaur is going to have no system but trying to bite or slap at the air.

Basically my argument is play everything realistically. They are supposed to represent people, not be a board game or video game.

[Winthur]

You can mix those tactics together, too. Invisible enemies can be a calculated threat to properly paranoid enemies, and players could identify one or two enemies who see invisible (or have a keen sense of hearing) that would kill the CoI tactics if left unchecked. His companions might not be able to, but he can; if he is disabled before he can squeal, their tactic works, if not, they're forced to improvise.

Leave items they're stealing in plain sight. Have guards covering each other so that when someone's throat gets slit out of nowhere, the other guard is putting everything into high alert. Have your enemies desperately use improvised weapons like kicking up a cloud of flour into the air. Leave reasonable alarms on stuff and let your players figure out how to find them.

What if the party gets ambushed and can't prepare Heist #235? Who uses the Cloak of Invisibility then? It's rather useful for solo missions, but only one person benefits from it in a situation where you're not playing Hitman on god mode.

Sometimes the players might simply "fail upward" or "succeed downward". Sometimes their successful kills might bring about retribution or attention from someone they didn't know about. If there's a powerful group with a CoI, people might reach out to them to carry out more elaborate services than punking some mooks.

Also, ask yourself: Would you object to a situation where, say, a player is delivering tremendous melee damage and you were to start throwing high AC enemies, or HP sponges at him, or organized ranged enemies, so he no longer one-shots them?

When I was 8 years old I had a trippy dream about a weird cartoon my imagination conjured about a pair of ghosts who give a little girl a pair of castanets and a cowbell and whenever she used them, the ghosts would appear in front of any encounter and basically say "Boo" and fix it, often without explanation; they basically snapped their fingers and the problem was fixed. I remember hating that cartoon and hating my brain. Now imagine the girl does have the castanets and a cowbell, but the ghosts aren't a get outta jail free card and sometimes they can only serve as a distraction, as plan B or some other form of diversion. It's not like the item becomes completely useless, but you are turning it into a resource and not as a crutch that trivializes encounters.

Like, Harry Potter figured out how to keep applying tension even with the invisibility cloak in play, so no reason you shouldn't either.

tl;dr: E) All of the above

[patchyman]

I get the impression that this is a hypothetical example, but you could argue that you are not getting a “fair” impression of the module if you allow your players to buy equipment that is not available in the module.

As to the more general point, I don’t think players enjoy it if every encounter is too easy and they are simply rolling dice for no real reason, and players really don’t like it when you invalidate their choices by hard countering their tactics.

There is no single solution to this. Continue to include some encounters that are vulnerable to the tactic. Include a couple that counter the tactic. Have intelligent enemies react intelligently, and retreat if that is the best option. Include some encounters where success does not involve killing all the enemies quickly. Finally, include a couple of “soft” counter encounters. Instead of an enemy that can see invisible, a fight that takes place in pitch black so no one can see anything. A fight that takes place in waist deep water so the invisible character’s displacement is visible.

[Pauly]

The worst thing tp do is to suddenly make all the party’s enemies immune to the effect of invisibility*. It makes the players feel cheated and that the DM is playing against them.

There are some good ways to deal with the problem without hitting the players over the head with a banhammer, some of which have already been mentioned. My favorites include

1) give them problems that can’t be solved purely by invisibility. Invisibility is very good in the traditional snake form dungeon where you deal with small groups of enemies in penny packets. More open, realistic style castle layouts are one way. Flying enemies that can’t be attacked by foot is another.

2) let the enemies not be complete boneheads. Covering the floor with flour which will show up any footprintTs. “Whistling floorboards” happens when the joinery of the wood allows a little play when you step on a floorboard and the floorboards rub against each other. Guard animals like dogs (acute smell), geese (acute hearing) that will alert the enemy to the presence of cloaked intruders. Combine these with area of effect defenses.

3) create custom enemies like the ringwraiths in LoTR. When characters are normal they are treated as invisible for these foes, but when they are invisible they are treated as visible. These opponents need to be foreshadowed explicitly and be found rarely.

Gradually introduce countermeasures to their “I win” button. Let the players feel that the world has become more challenging, not that the DM is out to get them.

* or whatever it is the party is spamming.

[patchyman]

Do you know who doesn’t care about invisibility and generally isn’t considered a cheap tactic? My friends Mr. Fireball and Mr. Wall of Fire.

[Inchhighguy]

Yes.

Should you obliterate the party as soon as they take one step....well, no, of course not.

In D&D, most foes are sligtly more powerful then the PCs....this is a bulit in part of the game that makes the game a challange. Though...after 3rd level or so that just goes all out the window.

A typical foe like a spellcaster will likey have a counter to whatever the PCs do, again this is part of the game. And as the level of the game goes up, just about all foes get abilities and counters. And the PCs will get new ones and foes get new counters and so on and so on.

Though D&D is not exactly a pure linear game either. Even at 1st level the vast majority of animals and beast like creatures have an ability, often scent that can get around things like invisibility.

[RNightstalker]

Do you know who doesn’t care about invisibility and generally isn’t considered a cheap tactic? My friends Mr. Fireball and Mr. Wall of Fire.

That is my post of the day! lol

[hencook]

Your party skips a level.

The game goes to cutscene mode. For the past year, the group has been successfully thwarting foes with the cloak of invisibility. The PCs ensured no foe lived to tell the tale, but eventually the party dwarf got a bit too cocky, and a little too drunk, and rumors of an elite invisible task force started to spread.

Out of game, it's been a week since our last session, but we are skipping ahead a year in-game. Your party has been doing very well, even making a ton of coin, but your enemies are getting smarter. You get the idea that the cloak of invisibility isn't going to be as effective anymore.

[False God]

Your party skips a level.

The game goes to cutscene mode. For the past year, the group has been successfully thwarting foes with the cloak of invisibility. The PCs ensured no foe lived to tell the tale, but eventually the party dwarf got a bit too cocky, and a little too drunk, and rumors of an elite invisible task force started to spread.

Out of game, it's been a week since our last session, but we are skipping ahead a year in-game. Your party has been doing very well, even making a ton of coin, but your enemies are getting smarter. You get the idea that the cloak of invisibility isn't going to be as effective anymore.

I think that's fair. In a magic world it should be understood that there are enemies you can't see. Ghosts, invisible stalkers, shadow assassins. A few will probably be prepared for this. But when there is a notable rise in "whodunnits" linked to "unseen foes" it's natural that preparing for invisible threads will spread.

If the party were smart, they'd hang up the cloak and get into selling "amulets of invisibility detection". I mean, there's gotta be a growing market for that now!

[FabulousFizban]

only if there is a story reason for it. for instance, if they are being hunted by bounty hunters who have studied their tactics.

[Jay R]

Let's say your players bought a cloak of invisibility and really go ham with it, sneaking around and killing everyone. Stuff gets really easy. As a DM, do you:

From my rules for DMs:

24. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.


Related to this is:

14.The players do not have the right to screw up the game. They do have the right to screw up your plot. Don’t confuse the two.

If the cloak makes the next few encounters really easy, then it screwed up your plot. That's fine.

But if it eliminates all challenges, then it screwed up the game. Don't confuse the two.


I'm a fair GM. I'm a fan of pre-written modules because they are fair, in a sense. The modules are written without any knowledge on what my party will do to counter it. My games are not "The players versus the DM", it's more like I'm just a referee or CPU, and whether you win or lose, it's up to how you adapt to the module presented to you. I just don't really know what's fair to everyone, and it's kind of weird to just ask them.

I agree with you about running adventures, but you're missing the other half of the DM's job.


27. When you design a scenario, you should be firmly on the players' side, trying to produce encounters in which they have every legitimate chance to succeed (and that poor play and bad decisions can still let them fail). But when running the scenario, you need to be a fair and neutral judge of the PCs' actions.

Your job is to produce adventures in which they have every legitimate chance to succeed (and that poor play and bad decisions can still let them fail). Unless they are still challenged, even with the cloak, then you haven't provided a scenario in which poor play and bad decisions can still let them fail.

There's nothing unique about the power that comes from the cloak. When they get any new power, the encounters should get more challenging. This is no different from sending goblins after them at level 1, and giants at level 10.

[hencook]

From my rules for DMs:

24. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.


Where are the rest of these rules?

[icefractal]

I'd say a combination of B and D, with C as an emergent property. To be more specific -

On the immediate level, do nothing. Don't change the composition of encounters at all, don't add any countermeasures that wouldn't have already been there, just let the PCs kick some ass.

If the PCs are up against any kind of intelligent organization, then using scouts, having a few foes retreat to report in, scrying, etc should all be on the table. Not just for new abilities, but for weaknesses and common tactics. If you and the players are into it, you can make information control a big part of the game, or if not then you can abstract it (group X learns Y pieces of info every Z times they interact with the party).

And as far as raising the difficulty in general - yes, but it should happen 'naturally'. The PCs handled what they set out to do extremely easily? Well if they're part of an organization themselves, sounds like it's time for a promotion - which means more important missions with greater opposition. If they're treasure hunters, they'll be hearing about bigger, more dangerous hauls that "if you went through the umber swamps unscathed, this tomb should be no problem". Don't use bigger foes but describe them the same, that's what leads to a treadmill feeling.

[Kaptin Keen]

The trick is to never treat the PC's like they're random nobodies.

If they come upon a particularly useful trick, let that be super effective - for a while. But rumor gets around, and while not everyone will have an army of visible stalkers (they're like invisible stalkers, only in reverse), scrolls of see invisible, or the like, even the lowest peasant can strew flour across the floor.

[comk59]

I'll be honest, my worlds tend to have countermeasures built into it from the outset, before players even have a chance to get to that level. It's why most Orc camps have wargs, and why every guard patrol has a trained guard dog. D&D has a ton of invisible enemies, so it makes sense that animals with Scent would be in widespread use.

However, for your specific campaign, it depends on how discreet the players act, and how famous they are. You can be as invisible as you want, if you murder a whole keep Attano style, people are gonna take notice. Maybe rumors start circulating about an invisible monster cutting throats. And maybe the enemies of the PC's hear this, and think to themselves "You know, maybe we should go and pick up a rescue from the local Warg shelter. Just in case.".

Being said, the final decision is up to you, since you're the only one who has all the details.

[Lord Arkon]

E - All of the above.

To a certain degree, yes, you counter it. As they get more powerful, they face foes with greater resources, who must deal with rivals that have access to exotic abilities. If the enemy has a reasonable chance of learning the PC's tactics (survivors, study of previous attacks, scouts), they may begin to use some counter-measures to known abilities, within their means. Even if they don't, enemies with more resources will have better preparations and more weaknesses covered than previous foes.

Now, this comes at a price; the guard dogs trained to sniff out invisible foes have to be fed; the villains don't have enough spellcasters to let every guard unit have a detector, and even if they do that's going to eat at their spells. The important thing is that the countermeasures feel reasonable, and not every enemy has them. Think about what kind of resources the enemy has and what would be a reasonable 'invisible enemies tax' for their defense budget (if they had unlimited resources, they would have finished their evil plan already). Is a Gem of True Seeing worth skimping on armor for your bodyguards?

Let it be part of the PC's toolkit, just not the only part.

[Pleh]

Where are the rest of these rules?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?592257-Rules-for-DMs


tl;dr: E) All of the above

This is what I say as well. You don't want to perfectly negate an invisibility cloak in all encounters, nor allow it to steamroll everything.

But you don't have to go so far as Tremorsense or Blindsight to counter invisibility. If the enemies have a bag of flour and the racial Scent ability, that's a wake up call to the cloaked rogue.

Likewise, if you have an encounter with the floor covered in a foot of water, not only is it difficult terrain with disadvantage to moving silently, but invisible creatures leave noticeable holes in the water where their feet are.

So start mixing all of these options in. The mooks have scent. The boss has blindsense. A few monsters are completely vulnerable to invisibility. An enemy caster has laid a trap that purges invisibility for fools who think it means they need to use no other caution.

[Myta]

It depends on the tactic. Assuming the tactic is extremely strong if not countered (because otherwise there is no need to counter it anyway):

-a very specific tactic for a single situation, for example a specific plan to assasinate a bad guy: I try not to counter the player. if they have a good idea it will work if its makes sense in the scenario. I only counter it if I planned the counter before I knew of their tactic, or if there very obviously should be a counter even though I forgot about it in the planning.

-a general tactic that is widely available in the world: this will be countered or houseruled. It does not make any sense that the players would be the only ones using it. As an example lets assume a lvl2 spell that can trivially end any encounter: either there is a counter, then everyone who can reasonably use it, will use it, because everything else would be stupid and suicidal, or there is not, then the spell is broken and must fixed

-a general tactic that is very rare in the world, so a counter is generally not expected, but the players somehow have access to it: if it results from a broken rule it will be houseruled. otherwise the campaign is changed so that there still is a challenge. There will be counters that make sense in the world at important points. At the same time I try to make sure that there still are enough important situations that are not countered, so the tactic still feels useful and valueable.

edit:
this comic http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1159.html is a good example for the second case. invisibility is extremely strong when not countered, and also very common at a certain level. So dont be surprised by invisibility purge.

[Spore]

I'm a fair GM. I'm a fan of pre-written modules because they are fair, in a sense.

The solution is right there. You can't pull creatures out of your magic DM hat, like a tremorsense gelatinous cube, or even move it if it exists in the dungeon. But you can lure the adventurers, you can reposition existing monsters, you can have your spellcaster boss prepare a few other spell in their open spell slots, you can employ the old "flour from the top" trick if you allowed that for the players too.

Of course, creative tactics should be rewarded but repeating the same tactic in 2-3 fights should be somewhat countered. We had a fighter that would a) deal damage and b) trip people and monsters. You cant hardcounter him all the time with fliers because the nature of the class disallows for adapting to the environment. But you could very well present a giant demon spider that is hard to trip. You can give the fighter other goals and dangers to deal with than to roll for trips every other turn.

[Quertus]

No, you shouldn't explicitly counter the players' tactics. Yes, any monster / group that reasonably could / should, should do so.

Should you change the module? I am of the opinion that your goal should be to build your GM skills such that you don't have to change the modules that you wrote. Or, well, such that you at least very rarely need to ever even consider it. As i said in another thread, in response to "Rule #24",

I feel that fixing encounters should be considered a fail state, and the goal should be to design encounters with the inherent variety that, if the PCs pick up a new schtick, you've already got encounters slated against which that power will be strong, weak, and neutral.

I mean, if, for the first 11 levels, everything was neutral or weak against Fire, but, as soon as I pick up a Fire power, suddenly we start running into creatures that are strong against Fire, I'm calling shenanigans.

Similarly, if we never encounter CR appropriate animals until my Archivist picks up Charm Animal / Animal Friendship, it's going to feel contrived.

Lastly, if every time I play an X, the GM includes it, too, my X is usually not going to feel as special.

Know your players.

Know what types of Gamist contrivances will make the game better for your players, and which will make the game worse for your players. Build your game and your GM skills accordingly. But the best experience, IMO, will be if you build the GM skills to the point where you just use these techniques as a check, and rarely if ever have to change your encounters in order to provide variety.

… unless. Unless your players actually require that immediate same-session feedback. Unless your players get off on encountering other X. Unless the theme or the nature of the game specifically call for lower diversity.

Modules someone else wrote, OTOH, are often filled with such holes. I believe in running the module as written, and, if the players find that to be child's play, ask them if they'd rather balance to the module, or have me do better world-building.

Also, related note, given comments in this thread, I should point out that not all players have the same attachment to or definition of the Challenge aesthetic. Know your players. Maybe getting to sneak past almost everything will make this the best game that they've ever played, with the baddest character ever. Maybe it will make it a boring snoozer. Don't just assume you know which type of player you're dealing with (let alone that there is only one type of player, one "correct" challenge level). Actively find out.

[denthor]

Invisibly is great.
Does not work:
submerged in water. You displace water so odd holes in the water.

If someone is a slob that never sweeps say flour. You leave foot prints in any surface that can be displaced soft sand. You still can make noise . You still smell. A dog can detect you.

Then there are spells:
see invisible thst person gives direction. Arcane sight will work quickly. Invisibly purge off creature or alter.

There is an alignment to think about good does not go around slitting throats in people's sleep.

[King of Nowhere]

As to the more general point, I don’t think players enjoy it if every encounter is too easy and they are simply rolling dice for no real reason, and players really don’t like it when you invalidate their choices by hard countering their tactics.


this is the key point here. so the abiility should neither trivialize all encounters, not be nullified.

with the specific regard to invisibility, my party agreed to handwave it (you and your foes are all high level, you all see invisibility in some way) simply because keeping track of who can see what is a major organizational pain. but that's just something we did for simplicity.

also, try to be realistic. if there is a bunch of mooks and some start to die by attacks from an invisible creatures, the others are going to try to escape, not flail randomly at the air. if some of them make it, they will spread knowledge. how famous is thhe party? do the villains know their enemy? I've found that having a reasonable explanation for why this specific villain countered a specific party tactic works a great way towards keeping things fair from the players point of view.
and occasionally they will find an enemy that's not prepared and curbstomp it. that will let the players use their abilities to full effect, and it will also establish the actual main villains as competent.

[RedMage125]

From my rules for DMs:

24. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.


OP, this. This is such good advice.

As a general rule, good tactics, planning, and teamwork/cooperation should be rewarded. You want to encourage this kind of thing. And of course, sometimes, things don't go their way (bad dice rolls, etc), but sometimes they should.

At the same time, if the tactic works flawlessly EVERY time, your players are going to get bored. Combat will become stale and uninspired. There are a lot of low-level counters to invisibility as well. Glitterdust, Faerie Fire, a series of non-lethal traps that first spray the characters with water and then blast them with an (otherwise harmless) cloud of dust...so many possibilties. But keep in mind, COUNTERING the tactics can itself become stale and uninspired.

[hencook]

Invisibly is great.
Does not work:
submerged in water. You displace water so odd holes in the water.

If someone is a slob that never sweeps say flour. You leave foot prints in any surface that can be displaced soft sand. You still can make noise . You still smell. A dog can detect you.

Then there are spells:
see invisible thst person gives direction. Arcane sight will work quickly. Invisibly purge off creature or alter.

There is an alignment to think about good does not go around slitting throats in people's sleep.

missed the point of the thread, lol

[KineticDiplomat]

Short Answer: It is legitimate to counter the party’s tactics in two situations:

1) If a reasonable enemy would take those precautions - either because they’re forewarned or because they’re at a power level where taking precautions against such things is just good sense. At this point you can break out the hard counters, just not in an overwhelming and exquisitely tailored effort to kill the party. Unless of course the enemy has done loads of homework on the party and is, in fact, preparing an exquisitely tailored way to kill the party.

2) For the sake of avoiding hideous boredom in a more cinematic game (most D&D is), break out soft counters. The party tactic still gives them an advantage, but without being completely unanswered. The things like footprints in the sand.

[denthor]

missed the point of the thread, lol

Maybe with the last paragraph. The thread is should you interrupt the new ability.

The answer is grey if the flour is on the floor you describe the room. If they move their character through the flour they get the affect. If they say they go out of their way to not make noise (skill check) or move around other then thru. They made the choice.

As everyone say "you didn't say that the first time."

D&D is about thinking ability, wording for actions and math.

I fail the second all the time

[Concrete]

I had a party running an adventure path that centered heavily around giants. So the party adapted the strategy of staying airborne, rendering giants almost completely ineffective.

In this case, where the giants were all part of the same loose organization, with a wizard on top and a whole bunch of clever evil creatures as lieutenants, it made sense that when someone knew about their favorite tactics, nets, reach weapons and the odd oversized crossbow with nasty magic bolts started to turn up. It didn't render flying useless, but they actually had to start thinking of counters to that stuff.

So I find it fair to use, at the very least, imperfect ways to counter player abilities. Not the kind of stuff that just tells them "NO", but the kind of stuff that a reasonable villain would attempt on short notice to counter "The Invisibles of Innsmouth" or "The Fearsome Flying Five", or whatever a party that relies heavily on one neat tactic would be known for.

Like the party noticing that someone has emptied bags of sand on the ground to see their footprints, or that there's a bunch of string pulled across the room they can't get through without cutting. Oh, or maybe they realize that there is a corridor that for some reason has been brought down below freezing so that their breath can be seen in the air, so they have to hold their breaths!

And if that fails, a good old nightingale floor! make it challenges, not just walls.

[Quertus]

Personally, I like to do the world-building, and have the party occasionally encounter adventurer-class beings with bags of flour, as well as having other anti-invisibility measures present in the world, *even if the party never uses invisibility*, to represent that invisibility is not a completely unknown threat.

[Jay R]

Your job is to provide a challenge for the players. It is not only okay to counter the party's tactics, it is also required.

It is not okay to negate the party's tactics.

The invisibility cloak should often work. It is not true the suddenly every threat in the world is expecting an invisible attack. But some of their foes should be ready for it.

Another worthwhile approach is to have them harried by a thief with an invisibility cloak. Let them show you how they think one should be countered. [But remember that the long-term result will be that they will wind up with two invisibility cloaks.]

[Quertus]

Your job is to provide a challenge for the players. It is not only okay to counter the party's tactics, it is also required.

It is not okay to negate the party's tactics.

The invisibility cloak should often work. It is not true the suddenly every threat in the world is expecting an invisible attack. But some of their foes should be ready for it.

Another worthwhile approach is to have them harried by a thief with an invisibility cloak. Let them show you how they think one should be countered. [But remember that the long-term result will be that they will wind up with two invisibility cloaks.]

This depends on how / the extent to which your group cares about the Challenge aesthetic. It is entirely possible to have a character or party have a schtick that totally rocks a published module, you play it straight, and the players remember it as the best game with the most awesome party ever. And it's also possible to do the same thing with a different group, and them consider it a snoozer.

Know your group. Communicate. Find out where on the spectrum your group lives, and act accordingly.

[icefractal]

This depends on how / the extent to which your group cares about the Challenge aesthetic. It is entirely possible to have a character or party have a schtick that totally rocks a published module, you play it straight, and the players remember it as the best game with the most awesome party ever. And it's also possible to do the same thing with a different group, and them consider it a snoozer.This. Stuff like "Tucker's Kobolds" is often presented as inherently better GMing, but IME players are fine with quite a few "easy" encounters, as long as that's not the only thing happening (and easy fights tend to take less RL time anyway).

For that matter, making fights challenging with the minimum "budget" is something that entertains GMs more so than players - IME again.

[Psyren]

The key is that everyone at the table should have fun, and that includes you. If the players have a trick that lets them walk all over your encounters and they're enjoying themselves, but you're miserable or frustrated, that's no better than them being stymied at every turn - have a conversation and balance the game accordingly.

[JNAProductions]

The key is that everyone at the table should have fun, and that includes you. If the players have a trick that lets them walk all over your encounters and they're enjoying themselves, but you're miserable or frustrated, that's no better than them being stymied at every turn - have a conversation and balance the game accordingly.

Bolded the bit that's pretty much ALWAYS good advice.

OP, this thread been helpful? I hope so.

[Quertus]

The key is that everyone at the table should have fun, and that includes you. If the players have a trick that lets them walk all over your encounters and they're enjoying themselves, but you're miserable or frustrated, that's no better than them being stymied at every turn - have a conversation and balance the game accordingly.

Standard advice is, if one player's fun is disruptive to the group, you talk to them, tell them to get their act together, and, if they don't, you kick them out.

I think it's hilarious to apply that to the GM in this case.

"Dude, your insistence on making unrealistic encounters to ensure that our good planning doesn't let us walk all over your encounters is really bumming us out. Either make better encounters, or you will have to leave the group."

[Psyren]

Standard advice is, if one player's fun is disruptive to the group, you talk to them, tell them to get their act together, and, if they don't, you kick them out.

I think it's hilarious to apply that to the GM in this case.

"Dude, your insistence on making unrealistic encounters to ensure that our good planning doesn't let us walk all over your encounters is really bumming us out. Either make better encounters, or you will have to leave the group."

I didn't suggest kicking the GM - usually that's unnecessary as they are more likely to quit GMing than wait around for a mutiny. I agree that a statement like that would be funny though :smalltongue:

But I will hone in one aspect of your post - "unrealistic encounters." Part of the issue is that a party thinks being countered is unrealistic, i.e. metagaming on the part of the GM. But enemies can do recon too (especially the Big Bad), and the PCs usually end up being pretty famous people. If they become known for specific routine tactics, it shouldn't be surprising that smarter enemies eventually react to those tactics accordingly. Again, this shouldn't happen all the time, but sometimes would be reasonable.

[Willie the Duck]

The worst thing tp do is to suddenly make all the party’s enemies immune to the effect of invisibility*. It makes the players feel cheated and that the DM is playing against them.
…
1) give them problems that can’t be solved purely by invisibility. Invisibility is very good in the traditional snake form dungeon where you deal with small groups of enemies in penny packets. More open, realistic style castle layouts are one way. Flying enemies that can’t be attacked by foot is another.

2) let the enemies not be complete boneheads. Covering the floor with flour which will show up any footprintTs. “Whistling floorboards” happens when the joinery of the wood allows a little play when you step on a floorboard and the floorboards rub against each other. Guard animals like dogs (acute smell), geese (acute hearing) that will alert the enemy to the presence of cloaked intruders. Combine these with area of effect defenses.


Or how about just doors? Doors between players and objectives, where someone would notice the door being opened (by nobody, apparently). Invisibility isn't exactly a cure-all to detection (it's pretty much DM's call how hard it is to sneak by people who are listening for invisible assailants, and in combat the only expressly given benefit is disadvantage on opponent's attack rolls).

Btw, I am totally going to steel the idea of guard geese, although combining that with area of effect defenses is going to make for quite a few 'their goose is cooked' jokes.


Personally, I like to do the world-building, and have the party occasionally encounter adventurer-class beings with bags of flour, as well as having other anti-invisibility measures present in the world, *even if the party never uses invisibility*, to represent that invisibility is not a completely unknown threat.

For predictable things like invisibility, this goes a long way towards establishing that it is the world, in fact, that has adapted to the existence of invisible foes, not the enemies the PCs are suddenly facing once they get that ring/cloak of invisibility. I think the real question becomes what do you do when the PCs stumble onto a 'remarkably effective tactic' you didn't predict ahead of time (certainly at the point of worldbuilding).

[King of Nowhere]

I think the real question becomes what do you do when the PCs stumble onto a 'remarkably effective tactic' you didn't predict ahead of time (certainly at the point of worldbuilding).

as mentioned by many: once the tactic becomes known, others will adapt to it, or will copy it.

the major issue i have when that happens is justifying in-world why nobody ever did that before, if the tactic is not particularly obscure. If it relies on a non-standard spell or item, I can always say "this spell/item was only devised recently, people still haven't figured out all its uses", but otherwise it's not reasy to handle

[Willie the Duck]

as mentioned by many: once the tactic becomes known, others will adapt to it, or will copy it.

the major issue i have when that happens is justifying in-world why nobody ever did that before, if the tactic is not particularly obscure. If it relies on a non-standard spell or item, I can always say "this spell/item was only devised recently, people still haven't figured out all its uses", but otherwise it's not reasy to handle

That's pretty much what I meant -- do you act like this was a recently discovered exploit and have people react in real time to it (meaning that the long-lost tomb of ABC will not have any protection), or do you say, 'well of course person-of-power XYZ would have known about it and taken preventative measures' and retroactively given certain people protections. There's probably not a fixed answer.

[erikun]

Well, my first question is: The party has A cloak of invisibility? What exactly is the rest of the party doing while the rogue is polishing their sneak attack dice? What exactly does the party do when they all end up walking into an encounter?

Second, I'd recommend considering what is a fairly easy and common way to deal with the situation. I'm not talking about dust or flour on the floors, either; nobody runs around dumping flour on all the floors of their dungeon. Just what tactics, in general, work well against what the party is doing? I'd guess that groups, or at least large groups, would be a partial way to handle a single invisible character. If the rogue can't kill an enemy in one turn, then the enemy group is free to organize and figure out a way to fight back. Doors (or even more complex, locked or barred doors) impede progress. Something as simple as swinging burning torches should result in some effect when they inevitably hit, even if the cloak doesn't catch fire. These aren't particularly complex countermeasures, and they certainly won't work for enemies every time, but stuff like groups, doors, and torches are not unusual encounters to find. Remember them, and implement them in future games, even before the party gets their invisibily cloak.

I would also allow groups to start using the information about an invisibility cloak when they discover it. If the rogue backstabs one guard and the other cries out an alarm, then the next room (at least) is prepared for an attack, even if they don't know from what. If they're invisibly backstabbing everyone, then it'll cause enough alarms for the head boss to start taking note. If word gets out at the local tavern, then perhaps someone important will start making requests of the party - or perhaps a group of thieves will hear the story, and pay the party a visit. And, of course, if villains start hearing about the invisibility cloak, especially long-running villains, then they would probably prepare a spell or two in case they happen to run across the party. Expect ANY sort of major villain who has heard about it to have countermeasures prepared, especially if they know the party is actively working against them. It would be incredibly foolish not to.

And sure, throw in the occasional encounter that gets to ignore invisibility. Unless the campaign is so on rails that every opponent absolutely must be a human from a particular faction, there's nothing preventing the party from running into a monster in a cave that isn't affected by invisibility for any variety of reasons.

[RNightstalker]

The key is that everyone at the table should have fun, and that includes you. If the players have a trick that lets them walk all over your encounters and they're enjoying themselves, but you're miserable or frustrated, that's no better than them being stymied at every turn - have a conversation and balance the game accordingly.

Quote of the day.

[King of Nowhere]

That's pretty much what I meant -- do you act like this was a recently discovered exploit and have people react in real time to it (meaning that the long-lost tomb of ABC will not have any protection), or do you say, 'well of course person-of-power XYZ would have known about it and taken preventative measures' and retroactively given certain people protections. There's probably not a fixed answer.

personally, the answer here depends on whether it would break the worldbuilding. for example, if the long-lost tomb of ABC was the culmination of the campaign, and the new exploit would allow to bypass all of it, I would retroactively give it protections.
I would be frank about it with the players: I already gave them the speech "if i allowed you to do that unimpeded you'd trivialize the campaign and then we'd be all twiddling our thumbs" and they all agreed it would suck.

i'd let it bypass lesser obstacles

[druid91]

Let's say your players bought a cloak of invisibility and really go ham with it, sneaking around and killing everyone. Stuff gets really easy. As a DM, do you:


A) Start throwing in monsters that specifically counter invisibility, like tremorsense.
B) Have an encounter where many of the minions retreat, and one of them reports back in and says "They're using invisibility, we should counter them", and when the party fights a new faction, the new faction repeats this process as necessary.
C) Instead of countering the tactic specifically, add generally harder challenges.
D) Reward the player ingenuity and be more realistic about it; if the players aren't renown, then enemies aren't likely able to react to the tactic.
E) ____________!


I'm a fair GM. I'm a fan of pre-written modules because they are fair, in a sense. The modules are written without any knowledge on what my party will do to counter it. My games are not "The players versus the DM", it's more like I'm just a referee or CPU, and whether you win or lose, it's up to how you adapt to the module presented to you. I just don't really know what's fair to everyone, and it's kind of weird to just ask them.

Honestly, I think it's kind of a tier level thing. Any organization that has made it to a certain level of prominence likely has similar skills to a party of that level of prominence, and thus knowledge of those hypothetical dangers and how to counter them.

[Quertus]

I didn't suggest kicking the GM - usually that's unnecessary as they are more likely to quit GMing than wait around for a mutiny. I agree that a statement like that would be funny though :smalltongue:

But I will hone in one aspect of your post - "unrealistic encounters." Part of the issue is that a party thinks being countered is unrealistic, i.e. metagaming on the part of the GM. But enemies can do recon too (especially the Big Bad), and the PCs usually end up being pretty famous people. If they become known for specific routine tactics, it shouldn't be surprising that smarter enemies eventually react to those tactics accordingly. Again, this shouldn't happen all the time, but sometimes would be reasonable.

If the whole group thinks it's unrealistic, it's time for the GM to reevaluate his definition of "realistic", educate his players, and/or work on improving his communication. The latter may simply involve increased transparency, so that the players have the information necessary to correctly make that judgement.

But, having both had plenty of GMs with no concept of what was reasonable, and having seen plenty of posters in various threads show a lack of concern for making things reasonable, it's certainly not some random strawman, but a valid concern, that a GM could find themselves in such a position.


For predictable things like invisibility, this goes a long way towards establishing that it is the world, in fact, that has adapted to the existence of invisible foes, not the enemies the PCs are suddenly facing once they get that ring/cloak of invisibility. I think the real question becomes what do you do when the PCs stumble onto a 'remarkably effective tactic' you didn't predict ahead of time (certainly at the point of worldbuilding).


That's pretty much what I meant -- do you act like this was a recently discovered exploit and have people react in real time to it (meaning that the long-lost tomb of ABC will not have any protection), or do you say, 'well of course person-of-power XYZ would have known about it and taken preventative measures' and retroactively given certain people protections. There's probably not a fixed answer.

I think, if the GM can honestly say, "wow, I'm an idiot - I didn't include a single door in the entire campaign world" or the relevant equivalent, then they should learn from the experience, and do better world-building (either next time, or openly retroactively).

Otherwise, they should leave things as they are.

Now, that doesn't mean that actually aware villains have to just sit there - they can install these novel "doors" in their bases once they hear about both the invisible heroes and the concept of doors. Heck, the heroes may even get a hint, in the form of seeing the friendly king installing these newfangled doors, too.

[Psyren]

If the whole group thinks it's unrealistic, it's time for the GM to reevaluate his definition of "realistic", educate his players, and/or work on improving his communication. The latter may simply involve increased transparency, so that the players have the information necessary to correctly make that judgement.

But, having both had plenty of GMs with no concept of what was reasonable, and having seen plenty of posters in various threads show a lack of concern for making things reasonable, it's certainly not some random strawman, but a valid concern, that a GM could find themselves in such a position.

Oh agreed, even the most justified or reasonable scenario can collapse due to poor communication.

Similarly, I'm sure that forcibly ejecting the GM has happened.




I think, if the GM can honestly say, "wow, I'm an idiot - I didn't include a single door in the entire campaign world" or the relevant equivalent, then they should learn from the experience, and do better world-building (either next time, or openly retroactively).

Otherwise, they should leave things as they are.

I'd definitely opt for "openly retroactively" here, especially if the campaign has a long ways to go.



Now, that doesn't mean that actually aware villains have to just sit there - they can install these novel "doors" in their bases once they hear about both the invisible heroes and the concept of doors. Heck, the heroes may even get a hint, in the form of seeing the friendly king installing these newfangled doors, too.

Foreshadowing plot developments or evolving tactics is a good strategy.

[Demidos]

I think that forces that should reasonably be expected to fight invisible opponents (Noble house guards, wizard's pets, etc) should be equipped so, while the typical bar bouncer or goblins should not. Yes, flour can be bought by any peasant, but you yourself probably don't carry around weapons to defend yourself from, say, bears all the time (probably), because for most people on the planet that is a very unlikely threat, and therefore not worth the effort.

I will also note as an aside, if you are playing some variant of DND, in many editions Invisibility as that provided by a cloak will disappear on the first attack, and needs to be re-activated, while Greater Invisibility (a much higher level spell/effect) continues through attacks.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Let's say your players bought a cloak of invisibility and really go ham with it, sneaking around and killing everyone. Stuff gets really easy. As a DM, do you:


A) Start throwing in monsters that specifically counter invisibility, like tremorsense.
B) Have an encounter where many of the minions retreat, and one of them reports back in and says "They're using invisibility, we should counter them", and when the party fights a new faction, the new faction repeats this process as necessary.
C) Instead of countering the tactic specifically, add generally harder challenges.
D) Reward the player ingenuity and be more realistic about it; if the players aren't renown, then enemies aren't likely able to react to the tactic.
E) ____________!


I'm a fair GM. I'm a fan of pre-written modules because they are fair, in a sense. The modules are written without any knowledge on what my party will do to counter it. My games are not "The players versus the DM", it's more like I'm just a referee or CPU, and whether you win or lose, it's up to how you adapt to the module presented to you. I just don't really know what's fair to everyone, and it's kind of weird to just ask them.

So, invisibility drops when you attack, so it shouldn't be that encounter breaking. All things considered, I consider it useful for getting the drop on the enemy or re-positioning at the operational level undetected, but shouldn't be like Skyrim archery.

Second, invisibility doesn't make you undetectable, only invisible, the enemy can still detect you by hearing or smell or some such other detection method.

Third, enemies engaged by an invisible creature should figure out very quickly that they can't see what's shooting them, and adapt tactics accordingly. You don't need to use "see invisibility" to dispense fireballs danger-close if you're remarkably callous, for example. And of course there's "see invisibility".


As a further observation, as the party's modus operandi becomes known by the enemies, or their legend grows, expect the enemies to become increasingly prepared. Survivors can tell what happened while groups wiped out before they can report can't, so keep in mind what the enemy knows at any given time. If routed enemies report to their command, expect a more efficient response to be organized much quicker with specialists and a clear strategy, while if the players leave no survivors in quick battles, the enemy might respond slowly and more confusedly [such as with patrols] until it works out what's going on.