PDA

View Full Version : DM Maybe too easy on us



Lucyfur
2008-06-02, 01:03 PM
Our DM is usually putting my group up against CRs higher than our level, but I'm thinking that he plays the monsters with bad tactics so that the party survives. For example, last session he put us up against a Fire Giant. My Animal companion was the first to close with it, and died in the full attack that followed. But then the party all closed in close with it and the Giant would separate his full attacks between the party members. (DM) would roll randomly on who would get hit from each attack.

I told him that I thought he was taking it easy on us, but I didn't want to be too accusatory.

So whatdaya think, Is he coddling us?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-06-02, 01:06 PM
Our DM is usually putting my group up against CRs higher than our level, but I'm thinking that he plays the monsters with bad tactics so that the party survives. For example, last session he put us up against a Fire Giant. My Animal companion was the first to close with it, and died in the full attack that followed. But then the party all closed in close with it and the Giant would separate his full attacks between the party members. (DM) would roll randomly on who would get hit from each attack.

I told him that I thought he was taking it easy on us, but I didn't want to be too accusatory.

So whatdaya think, Is he coddling us?

No, he just doesn't know how to balance his encounters. The idea is to pit the party against well played monsters of their CR.

OwlbearUltimate
2008-06-02, 01:12 PM
Well, has he been a DM often? I had a friend who was DM for his first time and didn't do combat very realisticly. If it is his/her first or second campaign then just give him/her space, but if they are expirenced then he may just have forgotten or was being easy on you! If you have already pointed it out to the DM, then I would just let it sit unless you really feel encounters are becoming too easy, whereas you should say that the party is feeling no real difficultly against the monsters.

sikyon
2008-06-02, 01:12 PM
Low int means bad tactics.

Renegade Paladin
2008-06-02, 01:21 PM
Fire giants aren't exceptionally stupid, however.

sikyon
2008-06-02, 01:26 PM
Fire giants aren't exceptionally stupid, however.

True, randomly determined fire is abit dumb, what might have been more apt is striking at the last person who wounded him or the one who wounded him the most last round.

BTW if you all just rush into combat an equal CR encounter has a decent chance of killing one of you if played intellegently.

Zeta Kai
2008-06-02, 01:29 PM
The real question should be "Are you having fun playing?" If so, then he's doing his job well, regardless of a fire giant's tactics. If not, then the fire giants' tactics are only a symptom of a larger problem.

As crunch-crazy as I may be, I know that the long-term enjoyment of my group is more important than the exacting adhereance to the RAW.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-02, 01:33 PM
Low int means bad tactics.

Not really. Inexperience means bad tactics. Experience means good tactics. All creatures, unless they're absolute novices to combat, should know how to use their own abilities.

Stupid orcs should be easy to outwit, sure, but that doesn't mean they're idiots or fight ineffectively - their lack of intelligence just means they're probably no good at adapting or improvising.

Epinephrine
2008-06-02, 01:34 PM
Sounds too easy on you guys. Then again, DMs try (typically) to keep players alive. Our DM has occasionally had to work a little to keep us alive too... It's amazing when your party all fails their saves, especially if they only needed 5 or 6 to make it.

I agree though that appropriate-CRs, well played, will be more challenging and more rewarding. It doesn't feel that great to beat a tough enemy that isn't really trying, but scraping through a tough encounter in which you can tell that the enemy were really trying to kill you is a blast.

sikyon
2008-06-02, 01:39 PM
Not really. Inexperience means bad tactics. Experience means good tactics. All creatures, unless they're absolute novices to combat, should know how to use their own abilities.

Stupid orcs should be easy to outwit, sure, but that doesn't mean they're idiots or fight ineffectively - their lack of intelligence just means they're probably no good at adapting or improvising.

Low int means that experience is very hard to assimilate. Ie mentally handicapped persons learning repatitive movements or drawing patterns between action -> effectivness. It's not impossible, but it's much harder to do.

valadil
2008-06-02, 01:57 PM
Nothing bothers me more in a game than a DM that visibly goes easy on the party. I remember one particular dragon fight where the dragon would full attack hitting each party with one limb instead of spending the round to wipe out a single party member. It took all the fun out of the fight. There are contexts where this works (namely unintelligent beasts), but most often it just kills my suspension of disbelief.

This is why I prefer to fudge up than fudge down. It's a lot harder for players to tell if you added 50hp to an enemy than if you use dumb tactics. Or you can always make reinforcements show up. Even if they do figure out that you're fudging things, they still have a challenge to overcome instead of a crutch they didn't ask for.

Person_Man
2008-06-02, 01:58 PM
Fire Giants have an Int 10 and a Wis of 14 - pretty much the definition of average - not dumb. So I would have them understand how to concentrate on one enemy at a time, or I'd have them driven by anger, and have them pick on whichever PC dealt the most damage the round before.

But your DM might have house ruled their Int/Wis to be lower. Or he might just have the Fire Giant be driven by confusion - lashing out at eveyone around him when he's surrounded.

IMO, the key to good encounters is having an enemy with a motivation - and having that motivation be transparent to the PCs (if they bother to roleplay and use their Knowledge Skills). Why are they fighting the PCs? How smart are they? Do they understand how potent magic is, and thus the need to target magic users first? Once this is sorted out, tactics flow naturally, and no one questions whether or not you're going easy or being too hard.

Purple Cloak
2008-06-02, 02:20 PM
Consider how he is usualy, if he's usuay mean be worryed about what he's keeping the party alive for later :smallamused:

I know myself if I have a particularly nasty boss monster I tone down its minions if the players are having trouble. But that might be the fact that my group NEVER has a healer causeing me to have todo so.

But anyway as people have said he could have simpaly had it lashing out confused or being an inexperianced fighter.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-06-02, 02:25 PM
There are contexts where this works (namely unintelligent beasts).

Not really.

Packs of hunting animals will separate one target and kill it together. A bear would attack and maul one person rather than attacking everyone a little bit, although I suppose it might switch targets a lot round-to-round based on who hurt it last. Wolves will circle, dart in to pull someone down, then savage them on the ground...

Predatory animals are actually pretty dang good at killing things. I mean, if they weren't, they'd be dead.

CarpeGuitarrem
2008-06-02, 02:30 PM
This reminds me of one campaign I was in...I heard from the DM personally that almost all of the players should've been killed simply by something that happened early on in the encounter. I'm suspecting that the CR just wasn't quite low enough.

This is also why I really like roleplay-heavy campaigns. You don't have to rely on a true gameplay threat to provide tension in the game.