Should poor optimization give immunities to "bad things"?

[Jon_Dahl]

Right now in my current campaign the party is without a cleric... Actually they have very little abjuration-magic since their wizard is always on the offensive.

Since the campaign happens in a desert, away from magic shops and friendly clerics, PCs are pretty much on their own. However some of the desert monsters such as mummies and lamias have offensive powers that desperately need some curative or protective spells, such as Restoration and Remove Curse.

As a DM I feel extremely frustrated, because I have to severely restrict the selection of monsters in order to keep the PCs alive.

What is your view? Should the campaign world be protective towards PCs that are able to handle only very limited encounters or should a DM use wide selection of monsters but limiting the ones that are especially deadly?

How would you feel as a player if your group had four 7th-level characters and your character contracted a mummy rot and within 300 miles there were only low-level Bedouin NPCs? Would you feel that the DM is against you or the poor optimization that you have done as a group?

[Porthos]

Optimization is neither required nor not required to have a good roleplaying experience. At least that's what I keep hearing.

But to answer your question, of course you tailor the world for the characters. To a degree, at least. After all, would you drop an ancient red dragon on a bunch of first level characters?

Of course not. Well, unless it was part of a polt hook, that is.

So if you're not gonna send an encounter against PCs that can't handle it in cases like that, why do so in cases like this? It's really the same thing just at a different degree. When it comes right down to it, the "level appropiate enounters" are meant to be guides to figure out what would be challenging to a party. Or very challenging. Or deadly. Or... Well you get the idea.

So just sit down and look around and figure out what would be challenging. What would make them have to fight tooth and nail. What could be very deadly and lead to the next 4d6 group of party if things went horribly wrong.

Just don't be unfair about it. Unless they're expecting that, that is.

[Killer Angel]

Random encounter and minor bosses should be modeled following the combat effectiveness of the group. For more difficult encounters, climax battles and so on, the burden is more on the characters, that should plan and prepare for the fight in a proper way for the specific task, buying potions, scrolls.

With a low opt. group, the enemies should be low optimized too... but its not an excuse for the group to act foolishly and go after things that are dangerous. You won't charge into the dragon's lair, following a meta-reasoning "we're weak, the dragon will be weak too".

[Jlerpy]

Absolutely you should consider the party when designing your encounters. Just like you shouldn't toss an all-Wizard party into an Anti-magic field unless you want to make that a big point, you shouldn't toss a Cleric-less party against stuff that's going to make them weep.

Going Cleric-less is great if you want every wound to really mean something, but that should be a story feature, not just a punishment for nobody "taking one for the team and playing the Cleric".

[Mastikator]

You could make some of the more fatal encounters more optional as fight, make sure they know they always have the option of evading the monsters instead of charging ahead.

[TroubleBrewing]

Finding potions of Remove Curse or Cure Disease among a mummy's horde isn't out of the question, either.

[Jlerpy]

Very true. A mummy's got to be responsible about his social (un)life, after all. ;)

[some guy]

I think that if you give the players enough warnings beforehand* and give them opportunities to circumvent encounters, you're in the green to throw nasty things at them.
However, like others have said, they might have found potions or other magical items. But, of course, these potions might be difficult to find.

Question: were the pc's level 7 before they went in the desert? Could they prepare with buying potions, getting information about the area? If they could and didn't, they're just unprepared adventurers and unprepared adventurers are dead adventurers. If they couldn't, don't use those encounters or give them opportunities to solve the problems surrounding those encounters.


*Something like "You've heard stories about a gang of dangerous creatures roaming in the area to the east. Survivors seemed to be more simple minded after these horrific encounters. Are you sure you don't want to take the northern path?"
Or "You've heard bards tell that raiders of these tombs contracted a terrible disease that turned them into dust in just a few days. Are you sure you want to enter the tombs?"

[u-b]

Hmm... I do not see a reason to be particularly worried about mummies - they have speed of 20, so if your players are tactically inept, you could just as well consider it their problem or have some bedouin advise them about fighting naked, using their bows and employing smarts. Lamia is more difficult to judge, but I'd say do not use it unless you want to really hurt those guys. It could be deadly even against cleric-equipped group, if it lacks specific counters.

You could make some of the more fatal encounters more optional as fight, make sure they know they always have the option of evading the monsters instead of charging ahead.

And this, especially if your party is smart enough to get mounted.

[Jay R]

Hmm... I do not see a reason to be particularly worried about mummies - they have speed of 20, so if your players are tactically inept, you could just as well consider it their problem or have some bedouin advise them about fighting naked, using their bows and employing smarts.

If the locals know how to kill the mummies safely, why aren't the mummies dead?

[QuidEst]

Well… if you want full monsters selection, you have options like a temporary GMNPC healbot, encouraging use of Leadership if you've got a high CHA character in the group, or a humorously entrepreneurial merchant. (I've seen a game that even had an undead merchant in the middle of the ruins. He had been cursed in life for his greed, so he charged a hefty markup over in-town prices.)

You can also find or edit similar monsters. It's Pathfinder, but there's an Osirion Mummy template that doesn't have Mummy Rot. (It makes it darn hard to raise something it kills, mind you…)

[The Glyphstone]

If the locals know how to kill the mummies safely, why aren't the mummies dead?

-The mummies aren't a problem to the locals, so they don't care...but these stupid foreigners insist on tomb-robbing, so they might as well share what they know.
-They know the theory, but lack the expertise/tools/practice to pull it off with success, and none of them want to risk failure.
-Their knowledge and tricks have been passed down over generations, from a time when they did hunt and kill mummies but don't anymore for one of the reasons above.
-They're massive trolls and give the PCs bad advice.

[Mixt]

Adapt the world for the PC's convenience? Blasphemy!


Level 3 group is headed towards a swamp.

They are warned by a traveling merchant that the swamp is infested with hydras.

The group reasons that the DM wouldn't throw something so far out of their encounter range at them, so they enter the swamp anyway in the belief that no hydras will show up.

They are attacked by hydras, everybody dies.

Really, what were they expecting?

No changing the layout of the world for their convenience there, if they walk into a nest of monsters whose CR is beyond their ability to handle, then that's on their heads.

Lesson: Do some research and/or recon before waltzing into random caves or swamps, if the inhabitants are beyond what you can handle, DO NOT ENTER! And take those warnings seriously instead of assuming the DM will level scale everything for you.


Then there's the "Trying to invade Hell at level 9" incident.

"We are level 9, so we shouldn't encounter anything higher than CR 10 or so, even though we are invading the Nine He...OH MAH GAWD PIT FIEND!"


Hey, it's realistic, if in real life you were to walk into a bear cave, the bear wouldn't go away or randomly be replaced with some other animal just because you don't have a big enough gun to handle a bear.

[The Glyphstone]

Adapt the world for the PC's convenience? Blasphemy!


Level 3 group is headed towards a swamp.

They are warned by a traveling merchant that the swamp is infested with hydras.

The group reasons that the DM wouldn't throw something so far out of their encounter range at them, so they enter the swamp anyway in the belief that no hydras will show up.

They are attacked by hydras, everybody dies.

Really, what were they expecting?

No changing the layout of the world for their convenience there, if they walk into a nest of monsters whose CR is beyond their ability to handle, then that's on their heads.

Lesson: Do some research and/or recon before waltzing into random caves or swamps, if the inhabitants are beyond what you can handle, DO NOT ENTER! And take those warnings seriously instead of assuming the DM will level scale everything for you.


Then there's the "Trying to invade Hell at level 9" incident.

"We are level 9, so we shouldn't encounter anything higher than CR 10 or so, even though we are invading the Nine He...OH MAH GAWD PIT FIEND!"


Hey, it's realistic, if in real life you were to walk into a bear cave, the bear wouldn't go away or randomly be replaced with some other animal just because you don't have a big enough gun to handle a bear.

That's kind of bordering on strawman territory there, because no one has so far advocated CR-matching like an Elder Scrolls game. The topic at hand is abilities and powers, not CR - is it fair to throw an enemy your party could never beat even at its appropriate CR because of their group makeup. When you have a TWF rogue, a Warblade, a healbotty Cleric, and a Paladin, should the DM have all their encounters be flying monsters? How often should they fight Crystalline Trolls with their unbreakable (for that party) Regen/Sonic, or other enemies whose only possible response is "hope to outrun the halfling"? That's the question at hand, no "lol all monsters scale to PC level".

[u-b]

...

That is a nice way to handle things, with only one caveat: this way most of my characters would not go anywhere near half of pre-scribed locations found in production modules.

[Jay R]

As a DM I feel extremely frustrated, because I have to severely restrict the selection of monsters in order to keep the PCs alive.

Just think of it as running a game two levels lower. Give unoptimized 7th-level PCs the encounters you would give 5th levels. This way, you're not restricted; you're just behind. When they are ninth level, you can give them the 7th level encounter.

Should the campaign world be protective towards PCs that are able to handle only very limited encounters or should a DM use wide selection of monsters but limiting the ones that are especially deadly?

The biggest problem with limiting the encounters is that it's a hole that has no bottom. In our first D&D group (OD&D in the 1970s), one player was so bad that nobody would continue to game with him. He eventually rolled up a whole party and went off to play it. The DM had intended to keep his PCs alive, so he did everything he could to protect them, short of changing the world he had designed for the rest of us. The PCs were told not to go north; nobody comes back. They went north. They came to a sign that said, "Danger! Cockatrice Valley!" They entered the valley. They wandered through many statues of adventurers looking upward. They kept going. They heard heavy flapping above them. They stood there and looked up.

What can the DM do?

Poor optimization, in design or in play, usually comes from not reading and thinking about the rules, or from not thinking clearly. The problem of unoptimized characters is usually a symptom of the problem of unoptimized players.

Having said that, yes, try to design an encounter they can enjoy. Ideally, this is to let you use the monsters you normally can't use because they are too weak.

How would you feel as a player if your group had four 7th-level characters and your character contracted a mummy rot and within 300 miles there were only low-level Bedouin NPCs? Would you feel that the DM is against you or the poor optimization that you have done as a group?

Again, poor optimization usually comes from not reading and thinking about the rules, or from not thinking clearly. Most players in this category blame the DM for everything. Live with it. (And consider providing a hermit with Remove Curse and Cure Disease.)

[Sergeantbrother]

The point if D&D is to have fun, not to "realistically" model the extremely unrealistic and contrived idea of fantasy world dungeon crawls. Why should somebody have to play a cleric if they don't want to? The job of the DM is to give the PC's encounters that will challenge them, but that they will survive - because a big challenge that is overcome is the most fun. If the entire party dies, it's not the party that failed, but the GM.

[Voyager_I]

The point if D&D is to have fun, not to "realistically" model the extremely unrealistic and contrived idea of fantasy world dungeon crawls. Why should somebody have to play a cleric if they don't want to? The job of the DM is to give the PC's encounters that will challenge them, but that they will survive - because a big challenge that is overcome is the most fun. If the entire party dies, it's not the party that failed, but the GM.

Some people like the idea that their actions have consequences. Certainly, if I behave in a manner that is appropriate for the information the DM has provided us, I expect my character to survive things other than unlucky rolls, boss fights, and calculated risks. It's a two-way street. The DM is responsible for giving the players the opportunity to make correct decisions, but the players also need to take that information into account when deciding their course of action.

The DM is allowed to include things in his campaign world that the party isn't ready to fight yet; he just needs to make it reasonably clear what those things are. If the players ignore the information presented to them and decide to take the shortcut through The Valley of Certain Death, then that's not the DM's fault and he has no obligation to save them.

[holywhippet]

In your case I'd have the PCs run across some locals who have a member of their tribe infected with mummy rot. They know of a magical item that can remove the curse (since mummy rot can only be cured after the curse is removed) but they need the PCs to go get it. After they do the PCs can keep the item (which can cast remove curse once per day).

I don't think the PCs should be kept free from high level monsters - but if you are leading them towards that kind of danger via the plot you should not be doing so. I had one DM throw the party into battle against what was effectively a werewolf (2nd edition) while we were all level 2-3. This was following the plot BTW. Later he put us in a ambush against about a dozen enemies who'd guessed the route we'd be taking. He'd honestly expected us to all get killed.

[nedz]

In your case I'd have the PCs run across some locals who have a member of their tribe infected with mummy rot. They know of a magical item that can remove the curse (since mummy rot can only be cured after the curse is removed) but they need the PCs to go get it. After they do the PCs can keep the item (which can cast remove curse once per day).

I don't think the PCs should be kept free from high level monsters - but if you are leading them towards that kind of danger via the plot you should not be doing so. I had one DM throw the party into battle against what was effectively a werewolf (2nd edition) while we were all level 2-3. This was following the plot BTW. Later he put us in a ambush against about a dozen enemies who'd guessed the route we'd be taking. He'd honestly expected us to all get killed.

Pretty much this.
You still seem to be molly-coddling them like they were 1st level. You have to give them the opportunity to grow into better players, and you do that by presenting mortal risk. They will often suprise you by winning combats which you thought they would lose. The worst case is that someone has to create a new character, which is less of a big deal than you appear to think.

[Krenn]

Right now in my current campaign the party is without a cleric... Actually they have very little abjuration-magic since their wizard is always on the offensive.

Since the campaign happens in a desert, away from magic shops and friendly clerics, PCs are pretty much on their own. However some of the desert monsters such as mummies and lamias have offensive powers that desperately need some curative or protective spells, such as Restoration and Remove Curse.

As a DM I feel extremely frustrated, because I have to severely restrict the selection of monsters in order to keep the PCs alive.

What is your view? Should the campaign world be protective towards PCs that are able to handle only very limited encounters or should a DM use wide selection of monsters but limiting the ones that are especially deadly?

How would you feel as a player if your group had four 7th-level characters and your character contracted a mummy rot and within 300 miles there were only low-level Bedouin NPCs? Would you feel that the DM is against you or the poor optimization that you have done as a group?

The hackmaster mentality is clear. As long as the GM dropped enough clues about what they were getting into, failure to prepare or otherwise balance the party is the player's own fault.

Kill them all, and hope that your players will roll up a more intelligent party mix next time.

Remember: "The GM is not out to kill you. He's out to kill you if you're stupid"

[W3bDragon]

First off, if you're going with what makes sense, then it makes sense for the PCs to stumble upon the remains of past adventurers (prepared to fight mummies) that fell prey to other creatures or traps near where the mummies are. So finding potions or wands or scrolls of whatever you need to combat mummy rot isn't out of the question.

Secondly, and vastly more relevant is, this is a PnP game. Capitalize on that! You literally could do anything you want with it, for example:

1. The PCs find some hieroglyphics that describe a sacred well that was used to cure the mummy's curse from some hero that saved the town. Turns out that the well is right in the middle of some ruins haunted with many mummies. The PCs figure out that, instead of running out of the ruins looking for a cure for the mummy rot that one of the PCs contracted, they instead need to push forward and quickly, before the magical disease takes hold. Eventually they clear the ruins and find the well, which cures the PC with the power of plot.
   
   
   
2. The PCs run across a witch doctor/shaman/old man of the desert type NPC. They help him with some quest and in exchange, he gives them some magical herbs that, if taken daily, can delay the onset of mummy rot indefinitely. Even though he doesn't give them the secret of making these herbs, he gives them a supply to last them a month. So even though they eventually have to get back to civilization to get the mummy rot taken care of, they have some time to continue doing what they're doing.

The moral of the story is, just because they don't have access to restoration or remove curse, doesn't mean you shouldn't throw monsters at them that cause ability damage or curses. Just give them a feasible way to take care of it. Stumbling upon potions/scrolls, finding magical locations, or helpful NPCs are just three of many different ways you can handle it.

Its important to note that some might feel that doing things like that undermines the usefulness of a cleric in the party, and as such the players would never bother rolling one and continually depend on you to find solutions for their ailments. That's not a bad thing. If they have to go through a quest to help an NPC, expending resources and precious time, just to get a restoration spell, that only highlights the power of having a cleric along, who could've handled the problem in 10 minutes instead of needing a whole side quest just for 1 lousy spell.

[Socratov]

or you could use a god in disguise to make one of them a cleric.

it's is not uncommon for god to meddle in the affairs of man, especially if they are 'special'. he will first give them the taste, lie a dealer to a prospect junkie and later makes one of the partymembers swear fealty to him turning him into a cleric (with some nice boons ofcourse) which actually incentifies one of the players to play a cleric (with a hotline worth, say, +2 to DC's?)

TL;DR: plottwist, creation of cleric, bonus for said cleric => party with cleric

[Endarire]

My motto for fights: "Use something I find interesting and challenging and let them sort it out."

I've tried carefully accounting for balance and anticipating actions only to find things went very differently from what I anticipated. When the going gets tough, and the threat of death or severe pain is imminent, many people start thinking. I call it "Secret Agent Mode."

[Deepbluediver]

If you like certain thematically-appropriate monsters, but feel they have to much potential for a TPK, do some minor home-brewing to turn down the strength of their Save-or-Die style abilities. For example, make mummy rot a slower wasting disease, giving the PC's more time to find a cure.

If your group is as inexperienced as they seem (seriously, no curative powers at all?) then they won't even notice the difference.

[Jerthanis]

Creatures have the powers they do for pretty arbitrary reasons. Mummies cause Mummy Rot because a long time ago, someone said, "You know what mummies should do? They should cause you to slowly rot away over time!"

You could include Mummies who instead reconstruct themselves after a night and a day. Or you could have Lamias who become stone statues at will, becoming invincible and immobile, allowing them to wait until the PCs leave before retreating. You could have Sphinxes who have a poisonous bite or sandworms that shoot lightning. Or you could just have antagonists be witches who control crocodiles (or are they alligators? I always mix those two up) or make up your own unique color and flavor of monster and slap whatever abilities you want on them.

You don't have to make the monsters have abilities that standard Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue groups were meant to be able to counter just because some guy somewhere said it was important to have a Cleric in your group. Making enemies have powers the party can't counter makes them much more dangerous than they otherwise would be. Mummy Rot may as well be a save-or-die effect without countermagic.

That said, if there's a wizard, the best way to control what his philosophy is in terms of magic is to give out scrolls and encourage him to scribe them into his book. Give him Abjurations and Remove Curse, and heck, there's NO reason in particular you can't give him what is normally a Cleric-Only spell as a Wizard spell (perhaps with certain downsides) if you really do want them to have access to that magic. The fact that he's mostly offensively set up doesn't mean he can't cure these curses the following day.

[navar100]

Mummies do not have Mummy Rot for arbitrary reasons. They have Mummy Rot because of real world legend of a Mummy's Curse which you get for disturbing the tomb of a pharaoh in an Egyptian pyramid, leading to death. The archeologists who found King Tut's tomb suffered mysterious deaths, enhancing the legend. Skeptics of the legend say they were infected by a disease from a fungus or microscopic organism that thrived within the buried tomb for millennia.

[Mike_G]

I will change the campaign so that everyone has fun.

I've made adventures harder if the party was waltzing through with no effort, and easier if the party is getting slammed. I want the party to have to work for victory, but if they use what they have well, it should be possible to succeed.

I had one adventure where they were supposed to track some kidnappers into the city sewers. I wrote it for the usual Fighter/Rogue?Wizard/Cleric party. Well, the players made a Warblade, a Monk, a Barbarian and a Fighter. They guys I expected to play a Wizard wanted to try a Warblade, and our usual Cleric wanted to try a Barbarian. As written that adventure would ennd with an all-melee party dying horribly.

So I cut out the need for spells, reduced enemy casters in number and power, increased the numbers of melee enemies, made the guide they hired an Expert with skills in Search, Disable, Survival, Local Knowledge and First Aid, which worked fine--he was a professional guide, good at keeping them from falling into traps-- but he had no spells or combat abilities to outshine the PCs.

The result was a fun, challenging adventure. Lots of melee combat, everyone limped out with low HP, since they had no Cleric, but they all got to shine at what they wanted to try, and it was a memorable game.

I don't have the time or inclination to "teach the players a lesson." I just want to have fun. To me, that's epitomized by the party who wins a glorious victory with half of them down and the other half at single digit HP and spell slots, out of potions and sweating bullets. A TPK and a "next time, bring a Wizard" speech is the exact opposite of fun.

[Averis Vol]

I will change the campaign so that everyone has fun.

I've made adventures harder if the party was waltzing through with no effort, and easier if the party is getting slammed. I want the party to have to work for victory, but if they use what they have well, it should be possible to succeed.

I had one adventure where they were supposed to track some kidnappers into the city sewers. I wrote it for the usual Fighter/Rogue?Wizard/Cleric party. Well, the players made a Warblade, a Monk, a Barbarian and a Fighter. They guys I expected to play a Wizard wanted to try a Warblade, and our usual Cleric wanted to try a Barbarian. As written that adventure would ennd with an all-melee party dying horribly.

So I cut out the need for spells, reduced enemy casters in number and power, increased the numbers of melee enemies, made the guide they hired an Expert with skills in Search, Disable, Survival, Local Knowledge and First Aid, which worked fine--he was a professional guide, good at keeping them from falling into traps-- but he had no spells or combat abilities to outshine the PCs.

The result was a fun, challenging adventure. Lots of melee combat, everyone limped out with low HP, since they had no Cleric, but they all got to shine at what they wanted to try, and it was a memorable game.

I don't have the time or inclination to "teach the players a lesson." I just want to have fun. To me, that's epitomized by the party who wins a glorious victory with half of them down and the other half at single digit HP and spell slots, out of potions and sweating bullets. A TPK and a "next time, bring a Wizard" speech is the exact opposite of fun.

i second this. after all if you want to have the perfect party every time you get a group of people together to play and want them to face enemies they cant handle, write a story instead. you can have all the massive op adventures you want without having to worry about a TPK. on the other hand if your playing with some friends of course you tone it down a bit, i mean mummy could just as easily mean zombie wrapped in toilet paper, who will know the difference?

optimization has a role to play in both the PC and DM chairs, so if your group is using very little, you should too.

[Jerthanis]

Mummies do not have Mummy Rot for arbitrary reasons. They have Mummy Rot because of real world legend of a Mummy's Curse which you get for disturbing the tomb of a pharaoh in an Egyptian pyramid, leading to death. The archeologists who found King Tut's tomb suffered mysterious deaths, enhancing the legend. Skeptics of the legend say they were infected by a disease from a fungus or microscopic organism that thrived within the buried tomb for millennia.

Well, the legend of the vampire has as many interpretations of their powers and abilities as there are legends. The people who wrote D&D didn't compare and contrast every legend with scientific rigor, judging very carefully exactly which mythological monster would win in a fight with every other in order to judge where they'd be placed in a heirarchy that is firmly representative of what such a monster would be like in "Real Life", they just wrote down numbers that sounded good and over time they became reflective of how we think of them.

Mummy Curse might be a gaze attack that causes critical threats against you to be auto-confirmed, or the mummy could reanimate itself as long as those cursed were still alive, gaining strength for each one it had successfully killed. Or it could be a curse on the land, keeping food from growing in any place owned by a person suffering the curse.

I'm just saying, Mythology is a big place, specifically hitting them with the part that can only be countered by one class when they could instead do anything else you could name, just because we're slightly more used to the one the writers wrote only one class with the counter to... it's like if you made golems who could only be slain by someone who strikes the word on their forehead in such a way as to change the word's meaning from, "Life" to "Death" and then had it wipe the party because they didn't have anyone with any Knowledge (Jewish Fokelore) or Languages (Ancient Hebrew)