PDA

View Full Version : How often do you target "good saves" or "immunities" on players



Spore
2021-10-23, 06:49 AM
I know there is a certain "metagame" going on within RPG systems. I am taking D&Desque approach because that is familiar to most of you. I want to know if you still target immune characters with stuff.

Example group:
Paladin is immune to mind affecting stuff and disease.
Druid is immune to poison and summons a fire elemental.
Tiefling Rogue has evasion and resists fire, cold and electricity.
The wizard has protection from missiles and shield up.

Would you target the wizard with magic missile or arrows? Would you use your succubus to try and seduce the paladin infight? Fireball the fire elemental and rogue? Try to poison the druid? Or would you go the opposite? Poison the wizard, fireball the wizard and paladin, seduce the rogue?

Wasting ones turns for the sake of RP seems feasible, but a bit pointless if only one side does it. On the other hand, I feel it should be obvious the zealous paladin does not easily succumb to a demon's lures, or the fast rogue is hit by a big explosion. On the other hand, it does make a fair few very good class features just pointless, when you're never targetted anyhow.

Thrudd
2021-10-23, 07:01 AM
Yeah, I'd say try to avoid targeting or not targeting specific character abilities. Try to just design adventures and scenarios that make sense for the setting and are fun for you. It's impossible to totally be unaware of the characters' abilities, and I think it's ok to purposefully challenge them or give them an easy fight on rare occasion- but mostly I'd try to keep that consideration out of my mind as best I could.

When it comes to RPing monsters and enemies, and you're not sure if they should attempt using a power you know won't work, let a die roll decide. Maybe a perception or intelligence check, maybe just a random 50/50.

Aliess
2021-10-23, 07:16 AM
Plus it's an awesome moment when the succubus comes up and tries their seduction on the paladin player only for a big grin to cross the players face as they get to make some witty "I'm sorry, but you're not my type" style comeback (followed by repeated stabbings).

Rogan
2021-10-23, 07:37 AM
Things that are obvious are obvious.
You don't use fire on the fire elemental, for example.

But unless you have special knowledge about the wizard, using arrows or magic missile is absolutely valid.

It should also be possible for the attacker to take a guess and be wrong. Like, if someone summons a fire creature, he might have a special connection to fire, so don't fireball him.

So, try to forget the things you know and instead go by the things the attacker would know.

noob
2021-10-23, 07:47 AM
Things that are obvious are obvious.
You don't use fire on the fire elemental, for example.
.

I do not know.
Maybe fire elementals can be killed with regular fire and are tough only to magical fire due to being one only with magical fire?
It depends on the table probably.

Rogan
2021-10-23, 08:03 AM
I do not know.
Maybe fire elementals can be killed with regular fire and are tough only to magical fire due to being one only with magical fire?
It depends on the table probably.

Is this a serious suggestion? Because I have never heard anyone saying "Hey, wouldn't it be a great idea to attack a being made of fire with fire?".

Vahnavoi
2021-10-23, 08:14 AM
It depends. Let's first make a distinction between few types of games:

1) Games where I, as a game master, have perfect information and no particular rules for how to play enemy characters.

2) Games where I have perfect information and am subject to some rules on how to play enemy characters.

3) Games where I don't have perfect information but am better at predicting my players than they are at predicting me.

4) Games where I don't have perfect information and my players are better at predicting me than I am at predicting them.

5) Games which are too chaotic to predict.

The answers for each are:

1) Never target immunities or good resistances except when I want my players to win or am playing some complex strategy which requires lulling the players into a false sense of security.

2) Never target immunities or good resistances except when no legal options are present, otherwise like above.

3) Only target immunities or good resistances by mistake which, depending on the game, may reduce to one of the cases above, otherwise being somewhere below 50% of the time.

4) Forced by player action to target immunities or good resistances more than 50% of the time.

5) Can make no principled decision of how often to attack immunities or good resistances.

Mastikator
2021-10-23, 08:56 AM
The DM should never meta game, if the NPCs know the weaknesses of the PCs and have the means to target those weaknesses only then should they do it. In fact if the enemies are organized and use strategy then that probably relies on communication: the NPCs should be shouting orders at each other, may be encrypted or in a language the PCs do not understand. But the DM should narrate that.

If the PCs are constantly meta gaming/cheating and you need them to stop then tell them not to, give rewards to players that roleplay.

False God
2021-10-23, 08:58 AM
Depends on the enemy. Probably about 25% of the time, usually to telegraph the enemy's powers before I use them on someone who is likely to fail their save.

Smarter enemies may test player defenses with lower-level spells that were unlikely to succeed.

----

Quite frankly, I don't pay much attention to my players character sheets. I know a couple of their stats a couple skills they use often and such but that's about it.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-10-23, 09:32 AM
If the monsters don't know about the immunity, then they'll target whoever they feel like. If they do, they'll try to be effective. That simple.

And things like "all paladins are immune to fear" are meta enough to not be visible--both "X is a paladin" and "paladins are Y" aren't well defined things in universe.

Yora
2021-10-23, 09:58 AM
I don't tailor encounters to character stats, one way or another.

Spore
2021-10-23, 10:17 AM
The DM should never meta game, if the NPCs know the weaknesses of the PCs and have the means to target those weaknesses only then should they do it.

Thing is, every other creature is smart enough to judge their enemy. I would really not feel it like metagaming if the wizard has informed a potential mercenary group of the rough past exploits of the party, and thus conclude a common strategy beforehand.


I don't tailor encounters to character stats, one way or another.

One absolutely should tailor some encounters to the player's strengths and weaknesses imho. Fighting a lot of demons is making the paladin happy and stand out, meanwhile a few morally grey assassins that challenge the knight's ethos while the rogue can stab away happily is nice too. I am not talking about a enemy enchanter wizard that exclusively focusses on the horrible charisma save of the druid just to bully a player's decision, but if a charisma save comes up, you will pay the price for dumping it.

I am unsure if you mean that at all though. I have had the epiphany of using a playmat and squares is an absolute must at least for D&D as far as I am concerned because suddenly many abilities, spells and class features get their value adjusted. Maybe using less homebrew monsters and encounters is another such a thing, even if it only culls the possibility for harassing some players too much.

King of Nowhere
2021-10-23, 01:37 PM
i try to play npcs to their intelligence.
everyone will recognize that the guy in heavy armor waving the holy symbol around is a cleric, and will expect him to have good will saves, so he won't be hit often with will-based effects. they'll use those on the rogue (recognizable as the lightly armored, dual wielding dude) instead.
then again, among my players the wizard has spent a fortune in defensive items, and he's got the best AC in the party. But the enemies have no way of knowing that, and so they'll still try to hit the "squishy" wizard.

only recurring enemies with access to good information may tailor their combat to the party's capacity; and generally the party will also know about them.

Composer99
2021-10-23, 02:08 PM
I think players enjoy being able to "nope!" monsters from time to time.

I also think that as long as you run your monsters as not really knowing the PCs well (unless they have reason to), such moments will arise organically without you having to force them.

Enemies with experience fighting adventurer types or who have reason to use divination magic to learn about the PCs specifically are an obvious exception.

Pauly
2021-10-23, 03:53 PM
I never deliberately target a specific character in creating an encounter. Players feel that the DM is cheating if they create encounters that target a specific character’s weakness.

Since I have perfect knowledge of the situation and (should have) perfect knowledge of the PCs abilities I play the opponents as pretty dumb. The guy in heavy armor could be a fighter, a cleric, or a Paladin. The guy in leather armor could be a Barbarian, a rogue or a ranger and so on. So until the party takes an action that identifies character class or the attackers have reason to have prior knowledge the attackers will not act as if they know the PC’s classes. NB I consider looking at a character’s equipment and inferring class from that as meta-gaming to be avoided.

If randomly selecting targets, in the first round I will not target a PC that has a specific weakness to that type of attack. After the first round the party has been warned.

icefractal
2021-10-24, 05:33 AM
I feel like ideally, most foes should be built / set up without the PCs in mind, and should only use what knowledge they have available (which can include guessing, but that guessing should sometimes be wrong).

So if a PC is a huge brawny warrior? Yeah, probably not using Fortitude, probably using Will. But if they're actually a Magus and have a good Will save? Same tactics, because the enemies don't know that until they try.

A monk wearing robes and a wizard hat is usually going to be mistaken for a caster and foes will try to grapple them - until one of them gets counter-grappled or flurried, anyway. Likewise a psion wearing full plate will likely be mistaken for a warrior until their actions prove otherwise.

Quertus
2021-10-24, 05:42 PM
Heaven forbid the GM have to comprehend the concept of role-playing in a role-playing game. :smalltongue:

To quote Forest Gump, "that's all I have to say about that".


Is this a serious suggestion? Because I have never heard anyone saying "Hey, wouldn't it be a great idea to attack a being made of fire with fire?".

I mean, flesh creatures seem vulnerable to flesh. Isn't it kinda weird that fire creatures are immune to fire? (Color blue to taste)

PhoenixPhyre
2021-10-24, 05:56 PM
I had a player who was so excited to use his new spell that he proudly whipped it out on the next fight. Pity it was firestorm and we were fighting fire giants...

Telok
2021-10-24, 11:49 PM
Depends on the critter.

Smart ones with time to prep? Will review all info on opponents & prepare to bypass or defeat known defenses. Won't throw stuff the party has demonstrated resistance to.

Smart ones without prep? Run off what they can see, re-evaluate as they get more info. Depending on specifics they may open with something that is rarely resisted by anything or perhaps something that hits lost of common resistances at once.

Most regular folk will try their best shot, whatever it is. The organized ones will have a backup, others may panic if their thing doesn't work. Will improvise if required to fight and their best shot is resisted.

One trick ponys will use their trick. If it fails they may panic or flee.

Unintelligent creatures act on instinct & experiences, commonly fleeing if they can't affect an opponent.

Xervous
2021-10-25, 09:14 AM
The usual bits with smart vs dumb enemies, prepared vs unprepared.

The one big detail that seems to stay relevant is: while the PCs may be immune, their hirelings rarely are >:)

KorvinStarmast
2021-10-27, 02:06 PM
I also think that as long as you run your monsters as not really knowing the PCs well (unless they have reason to), such moments will arise organically without you having to force them. That is what I have found.
Enemies with experience fighting adventurer types or who have reason to use divination magic to learn about the PCs specifically are an obvious exception. Yeah; smart enemies play smart, but they are not omniscient. That's how I work it.

Smart ones with time to prep? Will review all info on opponents & prepare to bypass or defeat known defenses. Won't throw stuff the party has demonstrated resistance to.

Smart ones without prep? Run off what they can see, re-evaluate as they get more info. Depending on specifics they may open with something that is rarely resisted by anything or perhaps something that hits lost of common resistances at once.

Most regular folk will try their best shot, whatever it is. The organized ones will have a backup, others may panic if their thing doesn't work. Will improvise if required to fight and their best shot is resisted.

One trick ponys will use their trick. If it fails they may panic or flee.

Unintelligent creatures act on instinct & experiences, commonly fleeing if they can't affect an opponent. That's a great approach, thanks for summarizing that. :smallsmile:

Easy e
2021-10-27, 02:32 PM
Is this a serious suggestion? Because I have never heard anyone saying "Hey, wouldn't it be a great idea to attack a being made of fire with fire?".

You know the old saying; you fight fire with fire.

Edit*= Is this something I should put in blue text? I am not sure how that works.

Psyren
2021-10-27, 03:09 PM
I think players enjoy being able to "nope!" monsters from time to time.

This. And especially if it's a preferred tactic of the monster. A succubus isn't going to check for a Death Ward before going in for the kiss, they get off on it regardless. And a dragon will aim its breath to cover as many party members as possible even if some of them have energy protection.

With that said, a particularly intelligent/savvy foe may know some things. A master Assassin sent after a Druid is not going to bother poisoning their weapons for instance.

jayem
2021-10-27, 03:34 PM
I think players enjoy being able to "nope!" monsters from time to time.

I also think that as long as you run your monsters as not really knowing the PCs well (unless they have reason to), such moments will arise organically without you having to force them.

Enemies with experience fighting adventurer types or who have reason to use divination magic to learn about the PCs specifically are an obvious exception.

The worry I'd have is the effect of it skewing their observations.

Suppose the player gets fireballed 100 times and 7 get through their fireshield and they also get iced 3 times out of 4.
I'd worry that they'll "notice" that their fire resistance isn't working because they've been flamed twice as often as they've been iced.

icefractal
2021-10-27, 03:58 PM
Better than "my fire shield works, probably, but it doesn't do ****, because nobody ever targets me with fire" innit?

I really doubt anyone in a campaign where they get fireballed 25x as much as they get iced is going to think fire shield isn't worth.

LibraryOgre
2021-10-28, 05:21 PM
Less often as the players go up in levels and fame.

To an extent, the abilities of characters in the world should be known in a general sense. Paladins are immune to fear; halflings are resistant to it. Therefore, unless you don't have a choice, you don't use as many fear effects against them.

But, at lower levels, this is less true. Maybe the Paladin isn't powerful enough yet to be immune to fear? Maybe the halfling isn't that fearless, compared to other halflings? When the enemies are less powerful, these are more of an option.

But, as levels go up, and fame accumulates, intelligent enemies should know. Ser Gorden is a powerful paladin, strong in his faith, and you're not going to be able to make him afraid. Bilba the Nimble will get through your fireballs without singeing her golden hair. These may not be 100% true... Ser Gorden may be a Paladin dip who's mostly got levels in Fighter... but the combination of fame and stereotypes should mean that more powerful characters rarely get their strengths tested, except by people who want to prove that they're stronger.

Witty Username
2021-10-29, 10:43 PM
It's a good excuse to throw more of it at the party.
Would you be willing to throw at the party 3 intellect devourers per member of the party?
Does your answer change if all of them have proficiency in int saves?
Will your play group remember that?
Use their strengths to push the limits of what you can get away with.

Use sarcastic numbers of enemies to make the AoE glorious, use massive amounts of damage at those resistances. Etc, Etc.

Tanarii
2021-10-30, 09:55 AM
One of the advantages of open tables with pick up groups is you don't start to memorize the PCs capabilities. :smallamused:

But generally speaking, no, avoid tailoring stuff to the PCs or group as much as you can. Not easy obviously, given that DM-NPC separation is just as much a myth as player-character separation. But tailoring is chiseled into stone tablets from days of old to be handed down as one of the ten RPG sins.

Spore
2021-10-30, 07:23 PM
One of the advantages of open tables with pick up groups is you don't start to memorize the PCs capabilities. :smallamused:

But generally speaking, no, avoid tailoring stuff to the PCs or group as much as you can. Not easy obviously, given that DM-NPC separation is just as much a myth as player-character separation. But tailoring is chiseled into stone tablets from days of old to be handed down as one of the ten RPG sins.

But...but....what do I do with my linear guild now?

With my monk scoffing at the blacksmith's love for weapons and armor?
With the Cthulhu cultist showing the shadow summoner what horrors truly lurk in the dark?
Or the cleric of the Kraken god trying to drown the Fire Genasi bard's flame?

What about theming, about anathemas and holding up a mirror in front of the PCs? Not that this is particularly elegant storytelling...

Tanarii
2021-10-30, 08:58 PM
Not that this is particularly elegant storytelling...
Stop trying to tell stories and give the players a living breathing world for any characters they choose to bring to the table to interact with in character, and face consequences for their decisions?

Witty Username
2021-10-31, 02:12 AM
For the people who say the DM shouldn't metagame at all, would that include encounter balance?

No value judgment, I am actually curious. And a value judgment would make me a hypocrite as I have tossed an Assassin at a level 5 party and Gnoll Flind at the same party when they were level 3.

Tanarii
2021-10-31, 09:48 AM
For the people who say the DM shouldn't metagame at all, would that include encounter balance?
All DMs must metagaming. All players must metagame. It's impossible not to, because there's no such thing as total DM/Player-NPC/PC separation. Tailoring is in a similar boat when you run a single group that you can't help but know the character levels. But it's easy to use the "what if I didn't know" guideline as a starting place, unlike metagaming where doing that is usually just as bad as leaning into it.

Designing an area or adventure arc with specific levels in mind, but not specific characters or their specific levels, is what you would do if you didn't know what party levels there were, and then you'd Telegraph or directly communicate difficulty. Picking characters that roughly fit the expected level for an adventure, or going to areas they think they can handle, is what players would do.

Metagaming in general and tailoring for a single party do share one thing in common: acknowledging it can't be avoided entirely and dealing with it as best you can usually enhances the game, but leaning into it or actively trying to avoid it usually hurts the game. The difference is with tailoring, starting from "what if I didn't know" isn't actively trying to avoid it, because it's an knowable answer. Of course, as soon as you get to actual content included within a level bad, you end up right back at the same problem point. :smallamused: But leaning into tailoring isn't the solution either.

False God
2021-10-31, 10:26 AM
For the people who say the DM shouldn't metagame at all, would that include encounter balance?

No value judgment, I am actually curious. And a value judgment would make me a hypocrite as I have tossed an Assassin at a level 5 party and Gnoll Flind at the same party when they were level 3.

I mean, I guess it ultimately depends on what sort of world you're designing.

If you're creating a theme park, encounters are balanced for the area, not a party. Once the players have outleveled it, they should move on. Doesn't mean they will, but that's the idea. If the party goes into a higher level area too early, then just like the lower level areas, the encounters are designed for the area not the party. Everything is designed around an estimated level range, and the party either beats the fight...or doesn't.

If you're designing a world where anything could be anywhere, be it random or having pre-set events and creatures, then, again the encounters are only "balanced" as far as "This is a level 15 challenge." Your party might be level 5 when they encounter it, or level 20. They could be highly synergistic, or not, they could he very OP, or not. The encounter remains independent of their qualifications.

EVERYONE should try not to metagame. As best as they can. The player/character dichotomy is not perfect, nor is the DM/NPC. My personal preference is to making worlds that exist independently from the players. So I don't believe encounters should be tailored for the party. The characters have reasonable in-world knowledge, and are able to obtain more via interacting with various elements of the game and choose where they want to go.

Which is to say: I don't like to tailor encounters for my party (except when I'm playing that specific style of game for people who want that). IMO: it's up to the party to tailor their experience within the world. It's not going to be perfect, and they'll sometimes hit harder encounters and sometimes easier ones, but ultimately the control rests with them.

Mastikator
2021-10-31, 11:03 AM
For the people who say the DM shouldn't metagame at all, would that include encounter balance?

No value judgment, I am actually curious. And a value judgment would make me a hypocrite as I have tossed an Assassin at a level 5 party and Gnoll Flind at the same party when they were level 3.

IMO not only is it OK to have imbalanced encounters (both harder and easier) but it's better to have a variety of difficulty levels. I'd say it's more important to have encounters that make sense for the story than it is to have encounters that are balanced. The story should drive the encounters, the enemies motives should be what drives them to attack and it should inform their tactics.

Quertus
2021-10-31, 02:48 PM
For the people who say the DM shouldn't metagame at all, would that include encounter balance?

No value judgment, I am actually curious. And a value judgment would make me a hypocrite as I have tossed an Assassin at a level 5 party and Gnoll Flind at the same party when they were level 3.

Well, that's not actually a question for me, then, as I believe, if the GM knows Bob is deathly afraid of spiders IRL, the GM should metagame, and not run Arachnophobia.

To answer the question I believe you intended…

I run on two basic modes: "sandbox" and "module".

Sandbox: if the 1st level party decides to agro the ancient red dragon, well, that's what they do. If the epic level BDH party decides to pown some goblins, well, that's what they do.

Module: regardless of whether I made the content (in ignorance of the party) or bought the module (clearly not made with this party in mind), I run a sample party through the module. Then the players can see what kind of characters the module "expects", and the players can metagame accordingly.

And, if the players choose to tell the GM that they want to run a DPS SA build, and the GM knows that approximately none of the foes in Necrophilia on Bone Hill are vulnerable to SA, they can inform the Rogue's player, and the player can make an informed metagame decision, armed with that information.

Or, if the SA Rogue's player chooses not to tell the GM their character, they can play the game honest.

One last bit of "tailoring" I'd like to discuss. If I know I've got someone, for example, into architecture (Roy), instead of just saying "columns", I might do the research to know ahead of time that they're Ionic columns. What they are doesn't change, but the level of detail that the GM gives does.


All DMs must metagaming. All players must metagame. It's impossible not to, because there's no such thing as total DM/Player-NPC/PC separation. Tailoring is in a similar boat when you run a single group that you can't help but know the character levels. But it's easy to use the "what if I didn't know" guideline as a starting place, unlike metagaming where doing that is usually just as bad as leaning into it.

Designing an area or adventure arc with specific levels in mind, but not specific characters or their specific levels, is what you would do if you didn't know what party levels there were, and then you'd Telegraph or directly communicate difficulty. Picking characters that roughly fit the expected level for an adventure, or going to areas they think they can handle, is what players would do.

Metagaming in general and tailoring for a single party do share one thing in common: acknowledging it can't be avoided entirely and dealing with it as best you can usually enhances the game, but leaning into it or actively trying to avoid it usually hurts the game. The difference is with tailoring, starting from "what if I didn't know" isn't actively trying to avoid it, because it's an knowable answer. Of course, as soon as you get to actual content included within a level bad, you end up right back at the same problem point. :smallamused: But leaning into tailoring isn't the solution either.

I mean, all you have to do is to create the content before you know the party. Then you've got 0% tailoring, right? And, if you don't even tell the players what level it's for (a strange practice for a module, but I've seen it happen in a sandbox run Honest, where not everything automatically perfectly telegraphed its difficulty), then you can have 0% metagaming on both ends, can't you?

But, yes, generally speaking, I find people enjoy the game more when they have some idea what kind of characters to bring.

Tanarii
2021-10-31, 04:01 PM
I mean, all you have to do is to create the content before you know the party. Then you've got 0% tailoring, right? And, if you don't even tell the players what level it's for (a strange practice for a module, but I've seen it happen in a sandbox run Honest, where not everything automatically perfectly telegraphed its difficulty), then you can have 0% metagaming on both ends, can't you?

But, yes, generally speaking, I find people enjoy the game more when they have some idea what kind of characters to bring.
If you design content for a level band and number of characters, it's still a kind of tailoring, so to speak. Even if you don't know the actual party levels and numbers that will take it on.

LordCdrMilitant
2021-10-31, 09:53 PM
I know there is a certain "metagame" going on within RPG systems. I am taking D&Desque approach because that is familiar to most of you. I want to know if you still target immune characters with stuff.

Example group:
Paladin is immune to mind affecting stuff and disease.
Druid is immune to poison and summons a fire elemental.
Tiefling Rogue has evasion and resists fire, cold and electricity.
The wizard has protection from missiles and shield up.

Would you target the wizard with magic missile or arrows? Would you use your succubus to try and seduce the paladin infight? Fireball the fire elemental and rogue? Try to poison the druid? Or would you go the opposite? Poison the wizard, fireball the wizard and paladin, seduce the rogue?

Wasting ones turns for the sake of RP seems feasible, but a bit pointless if only one side does it. On the other hand, I feel it should be obvious the zealous paladin does not easily succumb to a demon's lures, or the fast rogue is hit by a big explosion. On the other hand, it does make a fair few very good class features just pointless, when you're never targetted anyhow.

Just a quibble: if you're never targeted because of an ability, it's actually being quite reasonably valuably and isn't useless.

Anyway, onto the main point:
It depends on the intelligence (capability for logic, reasoning, and tactics) and the intelligence (information known about the party, their objectives, and their tactics) of the enemies involved in the encounters.
If an enemy is intelligent and sufficiently informed to know that a character has a strong defense against something [which might be pretty obvious from cursory observation even if they haven't met before. Most parties don't generally go out of their way to conceal what they can do.] the enemy will instead use methods that circumvent that defense.
If an enemy is intelligent, but doesn't know that a character is strong against something, they will act as if they player didn't have that defense, [at least until they find out]. This doesn't mean they'll go out of their way to use an ability that wouldn't affect a player, just that they have no inhibitions on using that ability if it would appear to be tactically advantageous to do so absent the information that a player is resistant to it.
If an enemy isn't capable of developing more advanced strategy and tactics than monsters and beasts, then it'll approach the situation in accordance with it's 'standard' strategy and tactics and won't adapt to the party's strengths and weaknesses, and will instead flee if things don't work.

Given that I generally don't feature encounters with monsters and beasts unless the situation specifically calls for it, [Several factors: 1: I think random encounters just to have a combat that have no contribution to the story are a waste of session time to run and my time to prep. 2: I assume that the vast majority of creatures that are just hunting or wandering will, like real predators, generally avoid humans. 3: Most travel-routes, unless there's some specific reason for it not to be, are safe enough for unprotected travelers that any armed travelers like a party would have a trivial time dealing with threats along the road], I don't often deliberately target a player with an ability I know they resist. However, when the players go out of their way to conduct deception and misinformation operations, they're rewarded appropriately by seeing enemies using tactics and weapons they think are effective that actually aren't.

Quertus
2021-11-01, 06:49 AM
If you design content for a level band and number of characters, it's still a kind of tailoring, so to speak. Even if you don't know the actual party levels and numbers that will take it on.

But if you didn't *design* it for such, simply created it, and tested it, and found that it *happened* to be appropriate to such?

Like… if we started with the epic challenge of the locked door, moved on to the CR 1/10 "pile of papers" trap, continued with the toxic "what's gone bad in my fridge" demon, and finished with the monster under my bed, to retrieve the golden pillow. Then we could look at that adventure, and evaluate who it's appropriate for.

Yes, it's tailoring on the player end if the players choose a number of characters vaguely in that band. Which is probably for the best, in terms of what usually makes a fun game, we agree. But it technically isn't *required* - one could just grab a module at random for the party to run through, or the players could always say, "we know you said 'levels 10-12, but…" ["our epic level characters would, realistically, be interested in that plot line" / "we really want the challenge of trying it with 5th level characters"].

And, while I haven't seen that "go well" from a challenge perspective, I have seen players have fun with it (mostly in more sandboxy settings).

Tanarii
2021-11-01, 11:26 AM
But if you didn't *design* it for such, simply created it, and tested it, and found that it *happened* to be appropriate to such?

Like… if we started with the epic challenge of the locked door, moved on to the CR 1/10 "pile of papers" trap, continued with the toxic "what's gone bad in my fridge" demon, and finished with the monster under my bed, to retrieve the golden pillow. Then we could look at that adventure, and evaluate who it's appropriate for.
Agreed, that wouldn't be tailoring at all.

Spore
2021-11-02, 10:49 AM
If you design content for a level band and number of characters, it's still a kind of tailoring, so to speak. Even if you don't know the actual party levels and numbers that will take it on.

Tailoring is absolutely needed. I had a few NPCs walk into a low magic horror campaign, with their famed and favorite magic weapons still intact. As a consequence they tore the setting a new hole in the first few encounters, and only a display of uncertainty (aka not revealing the main monster they could've EASILY dispatched) did invoke some kind of fear in them.

As a result, I finally just doubled all the numbers of the game's statblocks, and suddenly the scary enforcer of the town's villain was an actual memorable victory rather than a cakewalk. If I had let them run amok with their weapons and gear, they could have easily stormed the final villain's lair at half the level they were supposed to, but metagaming assumptions on their part would have had them search the whole setting for a clear advantage before engaging the final boss. A long and gruelling boring travel.

But I agree here, that tailoring the boss to counter group's strengths or weaknesses was not the right call. I just made him powerful on all fronts, and they won because their strengths kicked in. My changes made the boss a demon, which powered up the paladin, and while his new form had damage resistances, the casters were not able to disable him, but weaken him enough so the paladin survived on single digit HP.

Duff
2021-11-02, 04:20 PM
Plus it's an awesome moment when the succubus comes up and tries their seduction on the paladin player only for a big grin to cross the players face as they get to make some witty "I'm sorry, but you're not my type" style comeback (followed by repeated stabbings).

In design of an encounter, it's good to try and make these come up for all your characters at times. Give everyone their chance to shine. I guess maybe in 1/2 of sessions someone should be getting to be shiny?

Within the encounter (I'm not sure which level your question was at) play the monster. Make choices based on what the monster knows or can be expected to deduce - don't target the AC of the guy in sheet steel, don't target the mind of the monk and don't fireball the red dragonborn with flames on their shield.


Example group:

Paladin is immune to mind affecting stuff and disease.
How clearly marked as a Paladin rather than a fighter are they? Assuming it's "Pretty obvious" and a reasonably well informed opponent (ie, someone who knows what paladins are like) then this is a no unless "Taking the shot on the off chance it's just a fighter with a holy aesthetic" is appropriate for the character. OTOH, an opponent who doesn't know paladins but does know fighters should have a few goes at this. And an animal type thinker will simply try to hit whoever looks most threatening or whoever looks most likely to become lunch

Druid is immune to poison and summons a fire elemental.
Much the same - how obviously are they a druid? How much does their enemy know about druids?. I think anything which uses fire attacks probably knows not to target the fire elemental with those

Tiefling Rogue has evasion and resists fire, cold and electricity.
Do all Teiflings get those resists? if so, as above but for "Teifling" and "Rogue" but note that a rogue's look and a "mobile fighter" or "Budget Fighter" look can be more similar, making the bar a bit harder to know about the evasion. If you get the chance to fireball and include the teifling you should. Given the choice of them or the druid with the fire elemental, go the rogue unless you know teiflings are resistant

The wizard has protection from missiles and shield up.
That's pure guesswork. Unless your attacker knows this wizard, they won't make any assumptions about which spells the PC knows or has cast. Maybe make a specific exception if the attacker is a wizard who always precasts those specific spells

Chauncymancer
2021-11-04, 11:30 AM
Is this a serious suggestion? Because I have never heard anyone saying "Hey, wouldn't it be a great idea to attack a being made of fire with fire?".
You stab the iron golem with a sword, do you not? Punching a man in the nose is attacking a being made of meat with meat.

Max_Killjoy
2021-11-04, 11:44 AM
I know there is a certain "metagame" going on within RPG systems. I am taking D&Desque approach because that is familiar to most of you. I want to know if you still target immune characters with stuff.

Example group:
Paladin is immune to mind affecting stuff and disease.
Druid is immune to poison and summons a fire elemental.
Tiefling Rogue has evasion and resists fire, cold and electricity.
The wizard has protection from missiles and shield up.

Would you target the wizard with magic missile or arrows? Would you use your succubus to try and seduce the paladin infight? Fireball the fire elemental and rogue? Try to poison the druid? Or would you go the opposite? Poison the wizard, fireball the wizard and paladin, seduce the rogue?

Wasting ones turns for the sake of RP seems feasible, but a bit pointless if only one side does it. On the other hand, I feel it should be obvious the zealous paladin does not easily succumb to a demon's lures, or the fast rogue is hit by a big explosion. On the other hand, it does make a fair few very good class features just pointless, when you're never targetted anyhow.


Depends on what the character could reasonably know about the target and various levels of resistance to attacks.

This is one of the things that can be done to give weight to characters with a scholarly or tactical bent, or a real drawback to a character with low INT and no knowledge skills, without reducing it to raw marginal dice effects.

LibraryOgre
2021-11-04, 01:21 PM
You stab the iron golem with a sword, do you not? Punching a man in the nose is attacking a being made of meat with meat.

One might be burning away the fuel the fire being needs, after all.

HidesHisEyes
2021-11-04, 01:32 PM
I know there is a certain "metagame" going on within RPG systems. I am taking D&Desque approach because that is familiar to most of you. I want to know if you still target immune characters with stuff.

Example group:
Paladin is immune to mind affecting stuff and disease.
Druid is immune to poison and summons a fire elemental.
Tiefling Rogue has evasion and resists fire, cold and electricity.
The wizard has protection from missiles and shield up.

Would you target the wizard with magic missile or arrows? Would you use your succubus to try and seduce the paladin infight? Fireball the fire elemental and rogue? Try to poison the druid? Or would you go the opposite? Poison the wizard, fireball the wizard and paladin, seduce the rogue?

Wasting ones turns for the sake of RP seems feasible, but a bit pointless if only one side does it. On the other hand, I feel it should be obvious the zealous paladin does not easily succumb to a demon's lures, or the fast rogue is hit by a big explosion. On the other hand, it does make a fair few very good class features just pointless, when you're never targetted anyhow.

Haven’t had time to read the whole thread so sorry if I’m not saying anything new but…

I’d say it depends on the specifics of the enemy using the ability and the nature of the PC’s resistance. If the resistance is obvious and/or the enemy is reasonably smart, I think it’s fair to have them avoid using abilities that won’t work. But if a pc has a certain resistance then at least sometimes you want them to have the cool “nope” moment and leave the enemy shaking their fist in futile rage.

That said, I’d argue that even if you have the enemies never ever use abilities that you know won’t work, that doesn’t necessarily render the PCs’ resistances pointless. If you have an “immunity to charm” feature and because of that enemies never even attempt to charm you, you’ve still got the result of never being charmed. Sure, that enemy may decide to just punch you instead, but often enemies’ special attacks are more powerful than their more standard options, so when that enemy punches you instead of charming you you’re still getting off lightly because of the class feature. It’s like carrying an umbrella because it’s sod’s law that if you don’t have one it will rain.

Duff
2021-11-04, 05:12 PM
One might be burning away the fuel the fire being needs, after all.

Good point. Though not a point that I've ever seen applied in D&D logic.
As far as I can think of, any case where the damage is coming significantly from the "element" of the attack, beings which are made of the element are immune. EG, fire, acid, electricity, cold.
Where the attack comes from what the element does, they might be affected.
I don't know if there is one, but imagine an ice creature which stabs it's enemy with Icey blade-hands. By D&D logic, this thing will be immune (or resistant) to ice damage but probably not to stab* damage. 2 of them could fight each other and poke holes but won't be doing as much damage to each other as to my warm fleshy PC

* OK, they might be resistant to stabs as the points skate off their hard slippery surface. But that's definitely optional.

Rogan
2021-11-04, 06:07 PM
You stab the iron golem with a sword, do you not? Punching a man in the nose is attacking a being made of meat with meat.

But not an iron sword. Better use Adamantine, so this annoying DR doesn't stop me.
And everybody knows that unarmed combat is totally underpowered.

:smalltongue:

Quertus
2021-11-05, 05:30 AM
That said, I’d argue that even if you have the enemies never ever use abilities that you know won’t work, that doesn’t necessarily render the PCs’ resistances pointless. If you have an “immunity to charm” feature and because of that enemies never even attempt to charm you, you’ve still got the result of never being charmed. Sure, that enemy may decide to just punch you instead, but often enemies’ special attacks are more powerful than their more standard options, so when that enemy punches you instead of charming you you’re still getting off lightly because of the class feature. It’s like carrying an umbrella because it’s sod’s law that if you don’t have one it will rain.

I'd say that, for the emotional impact, unless the PCs get to automatically know and avoid the resistances of the monsters, too, it's less like carrying an umbrella and never seeing rain, and not like bringing a raincoat, and never getting a date. Sure, part of that end result may have seemed life what you wanted, bit the path to get there makes all the difference.

HidesHisEyes
2021-11-05, 07:42 AM
I'd say that, for the emotional impact, unless the PCs get to automatically know and avoid the resistances of the monsters, too, it's less like carrying an umbrella and never seeing rain, and not like bringing a raincoat, and never getting a date. Sure, part of that end result may have seemed life what you wanted, bit the path to get there makes all the difference.

Not sure I understand you, but if you mean it’s more satisfying to have the “no that doesn’t work on me” moment then yeah, as I said in my post. I was just adding that having enemies avoid resistance doesn’t render the resistance completely pointless, as op suggested.

Tanarii
2021-11-05, 05:17 PM
One thing to keep in mind, if an enemy doesn't target you due to immunity or resistance, that doesn't necessarily mean it "worked". If they just target another ally, there may be no real net benefit to the group.

This also holds true for something like having an incredibly high AC or a truck-load of hit points.

Quertus
2021-11-05, 08:46 PM
One thing to keep in mind, if an enemy doesn't target you due to immunity or resistance, that doesn't necessarily mean it "worked". If they just target another ally, there may be no real net benefit to the group.

This also holds true for something like having an incredibly high AC or a truck-load of hit points.

The Vampire goes to Dominate someone. He sees a floating man, covered in Arcane symbols; a man in simple robes, unarmed, in a trained fighting stance; a creature, less man than breast, lurking in the shadows; and a robot.

What if the robot, immune to mind control, had been something else?

If the Vampire is played with omniscience, then the odds of it targeting the weakest link are always 100%; the only way to change the outcome would be to run someone with a worse resistance to Domination.

If the Dominate effect is "at will", *and* completely undetectable, the only difference is between "robot" (obvious immunity) and "undetectable immunity". Which is just a difference in how long until the Vampire orders the others to kill you (or otherwise enacts whatever plan it was dominating them for). Or "not immune", in which case the replacement joins the thralls.

However, if the Vampire's just making a reasonable guess? If their defenses are as obvious as the alternate character's, then it's either the same case as omniscience, or move from ⅓ to ¼ odds of choosing correctly.

However, with the robot, the player knows that they will never have to worry about being controlled.

And, if they're robot Batman, they've already got contingency plans to handle the scenario of anyone else being controlled.

If they're most anyone else? Tactically, yeah, the party's still a man down. But if it's Max playing the robot, and me playing the dominated thrall? We're both happy.

So there's a little more to the calculus than just "always a man down". But, yeah, it's a good argument against (the ability having its proper value when used vs) omniscience.

Tanarii
2021-11-05, 09:58 PM
I was purposely ignoring the debate on how they should determine the target for their ability. Point was, once they target someone else in the group instead of you, that may not be any net benefit to the group. As opposed to the individual.

Or maybe it will be a net benefit. But there seemed to be a lot of assumption going on in this thread that just because the individual doesn't get targeted once the enemy has some reason to believe their ability won't work, that the immunity did something that is positive. That it still "worked". That's not necessarily the case, on a party level.

Certainly for something that affects the group as a whole, like immunity to fire and a Fireball hitting the party, there's still benefit.

HidesHisEyes
2021-11-06, 08:49 AM
I was purposely ignoring the debate on how they should determine the target for their ability. Point was, once they target someone else in the group instead of you, that may not be any net benefit to the group. As opposed to the individual.

Or maybe it will be a net benefit. But there seemed to be a lot of assumption going on in this thread that just because the individual doesn't get targeted once the enemy has some reason to believe their ability won't work, that the immunity did something that is positive. That it still "worked". That's not necessarily the case, on a party level.

Certainly for something that affects the group as a whole, like immunity to fire and a Fireball hitting the party, there's still benefit.

Yeah I see what you mean, and overall I’m still coming come down on the “don’t always have the enemies act with omniscience” side. But I did take issue with the idea that if the enemies don’t target your resistance then the resistances are completely meaningless. When it comes to calculating how much of an advantage such a resistance gives the party as a whole if the enemy just targets someone else… oof, seems complicated. But the fact is, that immunity to charm still lets that player say “I in particular never get charmed ever”, and that’s meaningful even if it might sometimes turn out to be a bad thing for the party. There’s a bit of tension between potential playstyles here, because if you’re approaching the game as a fully strategic/tactical exercise then of course you don’t want character features that create a net negative for the party - but there are games, playstyles and groups that value “impact on narrative” at least as highly as effectiveness for defeating enemies and overcoming obstacles.

False God
2021-11-06, 10:16 AM
I was purposely ignoring the debate on how they should determine the target for their ability. Point was, once they target someone else in the group instead of you, that may not be any net benefit to the group. As opposed to the individual.

Or maybe it will be a net benefit. But there seemed to be a lot of assumption going on in this thread that just because the individual doesn't get targeted once the enemy has some reason to believe their ability won't work, that the immunity did something that is positive. That it still "worked". That's not necessarily the case, on a party level.

Certainly for something that affects the group as a whole, like immunity to fire and a Fireball hitting the party, there's still benefit.

I mean, this is a sound argument for more bounded limits on defenses. Total immunity (and AC to high as to effectively be total immunity) gets the boot in favor of improved forms of immunity. Anyone could get hit by the effect in question, some people are more likely going to pass their saves or fail, but it still leaves some minor percentile room for failure. Likewise, we should also eliminate the possibility of assured failure. No PC can have a a defense so low as to always fail.

It's very gamist to design a system this way though.

Mastikator
2021-11-06, 11:36 AM
Yeah I see what you mean, and overall I’m still coming come down on the “don’t always have the enemies act with omniscience” side. But I did take issue with the idea that if the enemies don’t target your resistance then the resistances are completely meaningless. When it comes to calculating how much of an advantage such a resistance gives the party as a whole if the enemy just targets someone else… oof, seems complicated. But the fact is, that immunity to charm still lets that player say “I in particular never get charmed ever”, and that’s meaningful even if it might sometimes turn out to be a bad thing for the party. There’s a bit of tension between potential playstyles here, because if you’re approaching the game as a fully strategic/tactical exercise then of course you don’t want character features that create a net negative for the party - but there are games, playstyles and groups that value “impact on narrative” at least as highly as effectiveness for defeating enemies and overcoming obstacles.

It has to do with action economy, if a PC never targets an enemy that happens to be immune to the effect you're targeting them with then you're never "wasting" an action then they're always efficient, if they are able to do that by reading the monster manual or DM notes then that's tantamount to cheating in my opinion. Guessing that a firebreathing dragon is immune or resistant to fire is fine, knowing that a shambling mound is healed by lightning (without prior PC knowledge) is cheating.

It's exactly the same if the DM does it, if it's generally known that elves are resistant to enchantments then by all means have the enemy target someone else. But if it's not clear to the enemy that the monk is an elf and the paladin is a human and the enemy still targets the paladin and not the elf then that's cheating and the DM has no business doing it.

It's not a wargame and you should not treat it like a wargame, the goal of the game is not to win battles. Battles are a means to an end!

Max_Killjoy
2021-11-06, 10:00 PM
I was purposely ignoring the debate on how they should determine the target for their ability. Point was, once they target someone else in the group instead of you, that may not be any net benefit to the group. As opposed to the individual.

Or maybe it will be a net benefit. But there seemed to be a lot of assumption going on in this thread that just because the individual doesn't get targeted once the enemy has some reason to believe their ability won't work, that the immunity did something that is positive. That it still "worked". That's not necessarily the case, on a party level.

Certainly for something that affects the group as a whole, like immunity to fire and a Fireball hitting the party, there's still benefit.

If there's a waste of time, actions, resources, etc in making the attempt on the here-to-fore unknown to be immune target, that's still of some benefit.

Xervous
2021-11-08, 09:12 AM
I mean, this is a sound argument for more bounded limits on defenses. Total immunity (and AC to high as to effectively be total immunity) gets the boot in favor of improved forms of immunity. Anyone could get hit by the effect in question, some people are more likely going to pass their saves or fail, but it still leaves some minor percentile room for failure. Likewise, we should also eliminate the possibility of assured failure. No PC can have a a defense so low as to always fail.

It's very gamist to design a system this way though.

How long down the resolution chain does this need to hold true? If Joe uses X on Bob while condition Y is present is a 100% failure rate on Bob’s part acceptable, given that Y is not guaranteed to be present?

kyoryu
2021-11-08, 11:23 AM
Enemies should player according to their intelligence, the knowledge they have, and the general knowledge available.

If wizards are common, it's not unreasonable for most people to know that wizards have some kind of magical shield thing that makes arrows miss. Of course, the response they have shouldn't be based on whether that particular wizard has the spell, as they have no way to know that.

Targeting solid defenses is going to be case by case. There's really three situations for smart critters.

1) the enemies have no info. Target whatever makes tactical sense without that info.
2) The enemies have generic info. Probably avoid targeting the strong defenses, unless it's tactically worth it. Do this whether or not they actually have those defenses. Generic info is stuff like "he's got big armor, he's probably hard to hit and take down physically, but should be weaker to mind stuff unless he does that weird holy stuff" kind of thing. Or, "wizards can block arrows". So, yes, a wizard without Shield can benefit if it's generally believed that wizards have the Shield spell.
3) The enemies have specific info. As above, but actually tailor it to the PC's actual defenses.

HidesHisEyes
2021-11-08, 02:38 PM
It has to do with action economy, if a PC never targets an enemy that happens to be immune to the effect you're targeting them with then you're never "wasting" an action then they're always efficient, if they are able to do that by reading the monster manual or DM notes then that's tantamount to cheating in my opinion. Guessing that a firebreathing dragon is immune or resistant to fire is fine, knowing that a shambling mound is healed by lightning (without prior PC knowledge) is cheating.

It's exactly the same if the DM does it, if it's generally known that elves are resistant to enchantments then by all means have the enemy target someone else. But if it's not clear to the enemy that the monk is an elf and the paladin is a human and the enemy still targets the paladin and not the elf then that's cheating and the DM has no business doing it.

It's not a wargame and you should not treat it like a wargame, the goal of the game is not to win battles. Battles are a means to an end!

I see where you’re coming from. For me that opens out onto a larger discussion about to what extent D&D actually is a war game, which is complicated and I won’t go into it… but I’ll mention that I’ve largely stopped playing D&D and almost entirely stopped GMing it… because I wanted to play an RPG and not a war game.

Weasel of Doom
2021-11-09, 03:12 AM
As a player I agree with the people saying monsters should be GMed as you would realistically expect them to act. That's how it goes for our group and I like it - some monsters will attack the weakest looking character because they're cowardly or just want the easiest meal available, others will attack the character they think is likely to be most threatening to knock them out early, others will just go for whoever's closest and others might go for whoever looks like they'll provide a challenging fight.
It's the same with specific attacks - monsters with reasonable intelligence or experience should know not to attack the wizard or the cleric with things that target a will save ... if they can work out who the wizard or cleric are (and that depends on the player's character descriptions, gear and, as the fight goes on, their actions).

It's important to play monsters to their level of INT/experience so that when the party are specifically targeted then they notice the contrast. A couple of sessions ago my party finally took out the assassin that had been dogging our heels for months IRL. He was particular challenge and a hated foe because he was the one hunting us and spent enough time spying on the party to specifically target weaknesses and not target "good saves" unless he had no choice. We could immediately feel the difference between stumbling upon a surprised monster in a dungeon vs being hunted by an intelligent and prepared foe.

Mastikator
2021-11-09, 03:43 AM
I see where you’re coming from. For me that opens out onto a larger discussion about to what extent D&D actually is a war game, which is complicated and I won’t go into it… but I’ll mention that I’ve largely stopped playing D&D and almost entirely stopped GMing it… because I wanted to play an RPG and not a war game.

I've been in many groups (some D&D, others not) where we explicitly avoided metagaming on the premise that it was cheating and incompatible with roleplaying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It just requires that everyone is on board that the goal is to roleplay, not win combat
That's something everyone has to sign on during session zero, but it's totally doable.

King of Nowhere
2021-11-09, 05:28 AM
So, on the "if you are too tanky, the enemy will target someone else and there's no net benefit for the party" train of thought....
Then the best tank would be someone naked and without any clear resistance. Opponents will always want to focus them, sparing everyone else.
Downside: it costs a resurrection per fight

I would say that if you make yourself immune to stuff there's always value for the party, even if it results in your teammates being targeted.
First, it still protects you from area effects where everyone is targeted. Second, after your weaker teammate has succumbed, you are next in line, and you avoid losing a second party member.
Third, one day your weaker teammate will alwo get resistances, and then the whole party will be more durable.

Of course the proper way to tank is to be hard, AND to have abilities that make it difficult for your enemies ti ignore you. But that would be another topic entirely.

kyoryu
2021-11-09, 10:57 AM
So, on the "if you are too tanky, the enemy will target someone else and there's no net benefit for the party" train of thought....
Then the best tank would be someone naked and without any clear resistance. Opponents will always want to focus them, sparing everyone else.
Downside: it costs a resurrection per fight

1) If the game has some level of ability for the tank to prevent others from engaging the squishier members, the value is maintained.
2) This was A Thing in 4e. The optimal defense value for a tank was basically "just squishy enough that attacking the tank was better value than attacking something else and taking the punishment for ignoring the tank". That's also why tanks in 4e needed to have moderate damage capability - a tank that also didn't have the ability to punish monsters for ignoring them would... be ignored.

In a situation where the tank has no ability to stop arbitrary targeting, the value of being too "tanky" is vastly decreased. For exactly the reason of "if you're too tanky, the enemy will target someone else".

For "tanking" to be a worthwhile strategy in a game, you need survivability and the ability to draw fire. If the ability is not absolute, then the ability to draw fire is likely punishment-based, and so needs to be balanced against survivability.

That was a lot of concepts all muddled together.

HidesHisEyes
2021-11-10, 11:39 AM
1) If the game has some level of ability for the tank to prevent others from engaging the squishier members, the value is maintained.
2) This was A Thing in 4e. The optimal defense value for a tank was basically "just squishy enough that attacking the tank was better value than attacking something else and taking the punishment for ignoring the tank". That's also why tanks in 4e needed to have moderate damage capability - a tank that also didn't have the ability to punish monsters for ignoring them would... be ignored.

In a situation where the tank has no ability to stop arbitrary targeting, the value of being too "tanky" is vastly decreased. For exactly the reason of "if you're too tanky, the enemy will target someone else".

For "tanking" to be a worthwhile strategy in a game, you need survivability and the ability to draw fire. If the ability is not absolute, then the ability to draw fire is likely punishment-based, and so needs to be balanced against survivability.

That was a lot of concepts all muddled together.

Unless your tank just only ever fights while standing in doorways.

In seriousness, this is part of why I like game systems with a very bold, broad-strokes approach to character abilities. If there’s a tanky class and it just has an ability that lets you goad an enemy so they get a penalty if they attack anyone else, and that class also has good defensive capabilities, that’s enough for me. And that can be the game’s sole “tank” option and I’m satisfied that my optimal level of customisability has been reached there. A system that has a plethora of ways to achieve that dynamic is probably a system that emphasises crunchy tactical character-building over emergent storytelling in a way that I find a bit unappealing.

That said, I’m typing this just before I head out to session zero of a Pathfinder 2 campaign, and I’m actually looking forward to navigating the labyrinthine character creation process, so maybe my preferences aren’t as strong as I present them!

Quertus
2021-11-10, 02:44 PM
I mean, this is a sound argument for more bounded limits on defenses. Total immunity (and AC to high as to effectively be total immunity) gets the boot in favor of improved forms of immunity.

Sorry, can you step me very slowly through that, as though a logic / geometry professor who hated you were grading your work? I'm not following how you got there.


So, on the "if you are too tanky, the enemy will target someone else and there's no net benefit for the party" train of thought....
Then the best tank would be someone naked and without any clear resistance. Opponents will always want to focus them, sparing everyone else.
Downside: it costs a resurrection per fight

I would say that if you make yourself immune to stuff there's always value for the party, even if it results in your teammates being targeted.
First, it still protects you from area effects where everyone is targeted. Second, after your weaker teammate has succumbed, you are next in line, and you avoid losing a second party member.
Third, one day your weaker teammate will alwo get resistances, and then the whole party will be more durable.

Of course the proper way to tank is to be hard, AND to have abilities that make it difficult for your enemies ti ignore you. But that would be another topic entirely.

Although I agree with most of this, I'll point out that the naked troll is such a tank that generally *doesn't* require Resurrection.

Duff
2021-11-10, 05:38 PM
Enemies should player according to their intelligence, the knowledge they have, and the general knowledge available.

If wizards are common, it's not unreasonable for most people to know that wizards have some kind of magical shield thing that makes arrows miss. Of course, the response they have shouldn't be based on whether that particular wizard has the spell, as they have no way to know that.

Targeting solid defenses is going to be case by case. There's really three situations for smart critters.

1) the enemies have no info. Target whatever makes tactical sense without that info.
2) The enemies have generic info. Probably avoid targeting the strong defenses, unless it's tactically worth it. Do this whether or not they actually have those defenses. Generic info is stuff like "he's got big armor, he's probably hard to hit and take down physically, but should be weaker to mind stuff unless he does that weird holy stuff" kind of thing. Or, "wizards can block arrows". So, yes, a wizard without Shield can benefit if it's generally believed that wizards have the Shield spell.
3) The enemies have specific info. As above, but actually tailor it to the PC's actual defenses.


I'm startled at the idea that monsters are played with omniscience or that a GM would design encounters to avoid the PC's immunities. Of course you want to include encounters which hit their weaknesses, but making that an "always thing" seems really weird to me. How common is it?

HidesHisEyes
2021-11-10, 06:28 PM
I'm startled at the idea that monsters are played with omniscience or that a GM would design encounters to avoid the PC's immunities. Of course you want to include encounters which hit their weaknesses, but making that an "always thing" seems really weird to me. How common is it?

I don’t think it’s common but there are probably groups who really lean in to D&D as a war game, where there is a “meta” and knowing about it and playing accordingly is part of the game. I wouldn’t take that approach myself, but I do have some sympathy for it because I honestly think there’s something about the design of this kind of RPG that’s like… the game wants to be played that way. I’m less into d&d than I used to be for this exact reason.

icefractal
2021-11-10, 09:35 PM
IIRC, 4E kind of takes that approach. Not that you'd know all the stats in advance, but that if an enemy has an ability like:
Spiky Ice: burst 3, anyone moving through the zone takes 1d6 per square and is slowed until the end of their turn, lasts for one minute or until melted (10 fire damage).

Then when it uses that ability, you tell the players what it does. As opposed to "The ground become frozen with spikes of ice sticking up," and then only revealing the effects when somebody triggers it.

And I can see the reasoning, although it is a trade off. While info-gathering and concealment can be part of the tactical game, there usually isn't enough time to do so during the fight. So quite often, uncertain factors just get ignored in favor of using generally-good abilities. While revealing that all at the start reduces the surprise factor, it makes it more likely that people will engage with the specific situation rather than just avoid it and hope for the best.

I think the value of concealed information is more when you have either a recurring foe, or a series of foes who all use the same type of ability. For example, if you're on a quest to stop the Jack Frost Cult from summoning their icy ruler, and you're going to be up against dozens of foes who have spiky ice abilities, then discovering how those abilities work over time is interesting. But if it's only a single battle against a lone ice wizard, PCs are likely going to gank first and ask questions never.

Spore
2021-11-11, 12:54 AM
And I can see the reasoning, although it is a trade off. While info-gathering and concealment can be part of the tactical game, there usually isn't enough time to do so during the fight. So quite often, uncertain factors just get ignored in favor of using generally-good abilities. While revealing that all at the start reduces the surprise factor, it makes it more likely that people will engage with the specific situation rather than just avoid it and hope for the best.


You actually bring up a great point. Niche abilities are sometimes even wasted when the specific situation they are designed to solve shows up because other blanket general skills are safer when the outcome is uncertain.

Take 5e's "Protection from Poison" for example. It is a great spell to have if you fight through a lair of poisonous spiders. But there your DM goes and makes stuff "interesting", the dolt. :smallwink: Suddenly the first three spiders are poisonous, the bigger "bruisers" just have a nasty bite attack and can teleport on short range, and the dungeon boss is a fire-based mechanical demon spider.

Suddenly, generalist spells like "Enhance Ability: Bear's Endurance" or "Lesser Restoration" once again trump the specific spell of "Protection from Poison". Plus, a meta-gaming "monster manual fan" (vs. chad story enjoyer :smallsmile: ) has a certain leg up here, as he would know spiders come on more shapes than "big" and "poisonous" in this game.

Of course this turns the topic on its head, because players are allowed to prepare for certain fights and some classes exceedingly NEED TO in order to maintain their power during such fights. But PCs are specialists who fight against generalist monsters. Maybe that is the actual point I am trying to make.

If you know Tucker's kobolds, you know how flipping dangerous specialist monsters can be (for the uninitiated, basically a horrible gauntlet of ambushes created from ambush and trap experts, who suck at open combat and thus have a piss poor creature rating), but I feel even without specifically preparing for player characters, sometimes specialist enemies are key to intense fights.

Many iconic D&D monsters (barring dragons) are specialists. Liches are arcane spellcasters and necromancers. Beholders are vision based enemies with dangerous anti-magic capability. Illithids attack the mind. Orcs and goblins revel in horde battles (goblins in Pathfinder are actually most dangerous if they use the help action on each other, making sure one of them hits every turn), werewolves are bruisers that heal from anything unless specifically prepared for.

No one remembers the fight where they fought twenty generic dretch mobs or orcs and goblins who do not coordinate. People remember liches, and dragons and illithids.

Mendicant
2021-11-17, 12:50 AM
Regularly. It's not always "organic" either; sometimes I put in enemies I know are going to fall flat on their face specifically because a gimme fight is fun. I also like making very difficult encounters that almost require a player or two to abuse a schtick or immunity just to get everyone to the other side in one piece.

In general I try to aim for a plausible world with scenarios and tactics that arise from the kinds of roleplaying decisions most people in this thread are talking about, but there's no escaping the knowledge I have of the PCs capabilities entirely. Rather than trying to wrestle with metagaming all the time, it can be fun to lean into it a bit.