PDA

View Full Version : Is enemy optimization poor DMing?



Talakeal
2015-04-05, 02:48 PM
First off, I am going to use 3.5 examples, but this is a general RPG question that can apply to any system so I am posting it here.


On a lot of threads (primarily those dealing with 3.5 class balance) I see people talking about how to build encounters "right" that involves giving the enemies every advantage they can without actually raising the CR. One example was giving every monster or group of monsters a bard assistant who was of a level and race just low enough that they would not increase the overall CR of the encounter at all.

Is this generally considered a good thing or a bad thing? To me it feels a bit too close to both metagaming and adversarial DMing.

On the other hand, I have often been criticized for not giving extra "XP" when a monster uses its spells to buff itself, is fighting on its own turf and is thus ideal for the habitat, or uses hit and run tactics.

I also will give encounters the occasional perk if it feels organic to do so; for example if the PCs were facing a unit of elite Spartan warriors I might use a basic fighter NPC template but then give them a bonus phalanx feat to represent their extreme training and eugenics program. I will not, however, go out of my way to optimize them just to screw the players or cheat them out of extra XP for a higher CR monster.


So I ask you, is a DM who goes the extra mile to "optimize" their encounters good, bad, or neither? Is it helpful or jackassery? Is this extra effort appreciated? Should the DM give bonus "XP" or increase the encounters "CR" for situational factors, or is doing so merely part of smart DMing?

Demidos
2015-04-05, 03:03 PM
Personal Opinion --

If the players want to be rockstars, dont. Let them have their glory.
If the players want to have to think and are fine with dying, you can abuse CR. But be reasonable.

Long answer

If the game is supposed to be realistic, high lethality, or your PCs are creative, smart monster tactics are important (especially for the high lethality. At some point of play, numbers become less meaningful (I stick your infinite HP and saves monster in a forcecage.....).

If the DM abuses options not available to players to artificially boost XP, sometimes it can get annoying (cough advanced hit dice/stupid templates/Nonassociated class levels cough)

That pair of 1 HD CR 1 elementals at level 1 is a piece of cake. That pair of 5 HD CR 2 elementals using earthglide with hit and run tactics throwing rocks....
I know CR2 is tougher than CR1s, but come on...Are you telling me two 2nd level fighters with shortswords and chain shirts are going to be that big of a challenge?


If the game is more for fun and the players are supposed to be the stars, then its fun to let them beat things that should be way above their paygrade, and you can give them lots of easy XP.

cobaltstarfire
2015-04-05, 03:26 PM
I think it really depends on the group.

My real life group in 5e only has 3 players (A druid4 /wizard1, a fighter1/cleric4, and a rogue4/bard1), and we pretty consistently make our way through challenges that would by the rules be considered more than a deadly challenge to us.

The DM says that we're just too clever and destructive and that he's not giving us any slack. And I think he does give us a mix of competent and not as competent enemies.


If it was all one or the other it'd probably become boring or a slog.

themaque
2015-04-05, 03:34 PM
It depends on what the point of the game is. Seriously, why does THIS group role play?

If it's to solve problems, come up with clever solutions, overcome problems, and combat than yes, it is a good thing. Your players are probably heavily optimized and ready to rumble.

If you have a group of thespians who took the time to take Skill Focus(Profession: Baker) than probably not. They are not optimized and are probably thinking and wanting a different style of game.

You customize your game to your players. Everyone does to a degree. Either before hand by careful player selection, or afterwards when you see who showed up.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-05, 03:54 PM
My opinion - it feels like an actual challenge has been overcome if the villains use smart tactics instead of just wade into combat until they're dead.

Usually my bad guys follow a script, basing their combat/defense on a simple plan that boosts their offense and shields their weaknesses, kind of like your phalanx Spartans. In a dungeon setting it will typically incorporate terrain and/or traps (eg - a kobold sorcerer casts Grease on a narrow ledge the PC's are on while his buddies roll rocks down.)

Initially they're probably tougher than their listed CR, but they don't usually adapt to PC tactics. Once someone comes up with a plan for overcoming their optimization they fall pretty quickly.

Anyway, PC's tend to be resilient. If I pulled something like this on a new group and they couldn't hack it I'd probably scale it down.

Karl Aegis
2015-04-05, 03:59 PM
Encounter-based experience is awful. All it does is encourage killing. You should get experience for completing an objective. The amount of violence along the way shouldn't matter. If you have to capture a castle you should get experience for actually capturing the castle, not murdering every occupant you can possibly find and then leaving. Encounter-based experience punishes intelligent play by making the opportunity cost of not charging the dang phalanx too much to bear.

jaydubs
2015-04-05, 04:01 PM
At the end of the day, the DM should be trying to provide:

1. A challenge appropriate to the group. This varies by how optimized the PCs are, and how challenging the game is even supposed to be. Some groups like really hard combat. Some don't.

2. An appropriate rate of power increase. This usually has to do with XP and loot.

So things like optimizing encounters may be really important, or it may be totally irrelevant. For instance, if you track xp, and you have optimized PCs, then you'll need to know how to optimize to achieve both 1 and 2 at the same time.

But if you get rid of xp, and find some kind of way to deal with loot inflation, then encounter optimization becomes completely optional. It doesn't really matter if they're facing optimized CR 3s or unoptimized CR 5s. As long as the challenge level is appropriate, they still level when it's appropriate.

oxybe
2015-04-05, 04:03 PM
The same way the players should optimize to meet the level of the game you want to run, you should also optimize to meet the level of the game they want to play.

As others said: if you're playing a game where the PCs are basically rockstars, stomping their way through dungeons while the bard is riffing powerchords and singing dragonforce you shouldn't be throwing the likes of a fully optimized CoDzilla in their faces.

On the flipside, if you're basically playing Darkest Dungeons the tabletop game, well at that point you should probably up the difficulty and monster tactics to the PCs are wounded and paranoid more often.

When all is said and done, you should optimize the enemies and use tactics to the level the group is comfortable with. Too much and you threaten to leave them frustrated any too little and you might just leave them bored.

cobaltstarfire
2015-04-05, 04:08 PM
Encounter-based experience is awful. All it does is encourage killing. You should get experience for completing an objective. The amount of violence along the way shouldn't matter. If you have to capture a castle you should get experience for actually capturing the castle, not murdering every occupant you can possibly find and then leaving. Encounter-based experience punishes intelligent play by making the opportunity cost of not charging the dang phalanx too much to bear.


We normally get a lot of extra XP from encounters because we get really inventive with how we handle things. Some we got xp simply from surviving/running away. We certainly don't just kill everything. If we did we'd have never made it through the first dungeon we went through.

Yora
2015-04-05, 04:13 PM
It's really just pointless. What do you accomplish by making the enemies tougher while reducing their XP?

And why even bother, the PCs get as many XP as you tell the players they are getting, regardless of any strange ideas the rulebooks might have about how they could be calculated.

But most games other than D&D don't even bother with XP for just that reason.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-05, 04:16 PM
Encounter-based experience is awful. All it does is encourage killing. You should get experience for completing an objective.

Absolutely!

Aotrs Commander
2015-04-05, 04:22 PM
I completely ignore CR except as like in AD&D as a measure of "what XP is this worth?" I just balance the combat "by eye", though that sort of thing is, I guess, and acquired skill.

(As a note, aside from boss battles, I halve combat XP, and use quest XP instead generally.)

EL I utterly ignore.

PersonMan
2015-04-05, 04:41 PM
Encounter-based experience is awful. All it does is encourage killing. You should get experience for completing an objective. The amount of violence along the way shouldn't matter. If you have to capture a castle you should get experience for actually capturing the castle, not murdering every occupant you can possibly find and then leaving. Encounter-based experience punishes intelligent play by making the opportunity cost of not charging the dang phalanx too much to bear.

This criticism only makes sense if you mean 'combat' by 'encounter', though. Encounter-based experience can just as easily be 'Encounter: Two guards are at the gate and won't let you pass. Goal: Get through the gate', with XP given no matter what means the PCs use to achieve their goal.

oxybe
2015-04-05, 05:01 PM
Encounter-based experience is awful. All it does is encourage killing. You should get experience for completing an objective. The amount of violence along the way shouldn't matter. If you have to capture a castle you should get experience for actually capturing the castle, not murdering every occupant you can possibly find and then leaving. Encounter-based experience punishes intelligent play by making the opportunity cost of not charging the dang phalanx too much to bear.

Combat only based XP is awful. I tend to use "encounter" as synonymous with "challenge that needs to be overcome" and as long as you overcome it you succeed and get your bennies.

But i've long stopped using XP and simply level people up upon completion of an adventure, successful or not as the experience has caused the character to grow.

BurgerBeast
2015-04-05, 05:23 PM
I'm answering on the assumption that the OP has considered how he chooses to award XP and has a rational basis for it.

I think you should make the encounter as hard as possible, bounded by fairness and reason. I understand that this is vague, so I'll try to elaborate.

As hard as possible: as previously stated by another poster, I think one of the biggest reasons a game is enjoyable is because choices have real (in-game) consequences. The choice to enter combat should never be taken lightly, and anyone involved should be in it to win, at all costs, as soon as possible, using whatever means necessary. Most enemies will use whatever they have at their disposal, and "nova" out of the gate.

fairness: encounters should not be tailored to the individual weaknesses of the PCs, but to the general overall best strategy of the enemies. They should exploit every advantage available, sometimes even foiling "first choice" strategies. The CR system was designed to encourage fairness, and should be used in this way. If the CR is fair according to the book, then you should use it to its maximum.

Reasonable: to me, the bard in every encounter is just unreasonable. I'm not saying it must be so, but it seems so to me. Reasonable to me means that the enemies' intelligence and resources are adequately considered. Surprises are okay, but unreasonable surprises aren't. Intelligent creatures ought to be paranoid, careful, and prepared for the unexpected. They ought to have plans, contingencies, and escape routes in most cases. Unintelligent creatures should still fight very well on instinct alone.

I think this helps the DM to keep a handle on encounter difficulty, too. The times that I, as a DM, have thrown unwinnable encounters at my PCs were the times that I chose an encounter with a CR that was too high by the rules, but that the PCs had previously handled. The problem, of course, was that I failed to handle the previous encounter properly and the enemies didn't maximize their abilities. This gave me the illusion that my PCs could handle that CR.

Dunno how clear this was. Hope it helps.

Tvtyrant
2015-04-05, 05:28 PM
This to me expresses the problem with tying in game rewards with roleplaying. XP refers to the party getting better at things, and CR refers to a reasonable approximation of how strong of a threat the party can face. An optimized party lowers the actual challenge of a stock opponent. Don't use xp is the answer I use.

Strigon
2015-04-05, 07:12 PM
I honestly think this is the only way to make proper encounters, but this comes with a few caveats; first, not every combat needs to be too tough. Optimizing some encounters, when appropriate, gives a nice change of pace and helps keep the party engaged. Optimizing everything, to the point where every wolf they ever run into seems uncannily smart for an animal, is just ridiculous (not to mention a huge waste of your valuable time). Think of it like adding pepper to your meal; no reason not to add it to a steak, or even your salad, but if you're adding pepper to your PB&J sandwich, there's something strange afoot.
Secondly, there is a difference between optimizing and min/maxing. If your players aren't good at optimizing, don't throw a batman wizard supported by well-optimized druids at them. If they are, maybe that'll be a nice challenge.
Finally, as with all other things while GM'ing, take criticism from your players, and ask them how they feel about the encounters. Their enjoyment is what makes or breaks the game, after all.

erikun
2015-04-05, 07:20 PM
I feel that it depends on what kind of a game you and your players are trying to run.

If you are looking for a challenging game, where fights are dangerous and against roughly equal strength opponents? Then yes, feel free to optimize the enemies. Don't go absurd with CODzilla everything (in the case of D&D3) and don't necessarily give enemies every advantage, but if your players are looking for a challenging fight there there isn't a reason to hold back. Even when they aren't "roughly equal strength" opponents, players can enjoy kicking the snot out of kobolds who nonetheless pose a challenge thanks to their tactics and class/equipment choices.

If you are looking for a less challenging game - specifically for D&D3, where the players are running Fighter/Rogue/healCleric/fireballSorc - then optimization is in poor choice. It might be better to stick with the established monster statblocks and rely on better tactics, at least to the extent of the creatures' intelligence. I wouldn't expect a pack of goblins to be setting up traps or luring PCs into an archery range, but I wouldn't put it past them to (attempt to) hide in wait for an ambush. Perhaps if they are familiar with the area, retreating goblins might intentionally cross paths with a much meaner creature while running. Not much beyond that.

If you are looking for a game where combat isn't the main focus or a challenge, then you probably don't want to be optimizing NPCs for combat. If the goal of the game is to explore and discover the secrets to a haunted house, then constantly fighting Anti-Magic Ur-Priest Chosen of Mystra Ghosts (or however that combination goes) will just end up as a massive distraction from what the players are expecting to do.

Grod_The_Giant
2015-04-05, 07:22 PM
Good tactics-- pre-encounter buffing, ambushes, teamwork, synergistic builds, and so on-- absolutely increase an encounter's difficulty, regardless of what the rules on "how much xp is this monster worth?" say. A more difficult encounter should mean a larger reward. So yes, an encounter with five teamwork-based fighters protecting a bard should absolutely be worth experience than an encounter with six barbarians charging straight at you.

But on a more broad level, enemies should be optimized to the same level as PCs-- both mechanically and tactically. Difficulty is relative to the group you have, not some platonic ideal in a rulebook. If your players have crappy builds but play intelligently, time to break out Tucker's Kobolds. If the group have forum-crafted optimized builds but approach ever fight with a kamikaze charge, your monsters should be dangerous but dumb.

Mr Beer
2015-04-05, 07:27 PM
"Not getting enough XP for the fight" is only a problem in a D&D-type game and I don't use this kind of system myself.

If I did, I would usually optimise NPC-type opponents to a lesser degree than PCs, except for ongoing campaign villains who we should expect to be high quality badasses.

magic9mushroom
2015-04-05, 07:36 PM
Encounter-based experience is awful. All it does is encourage killing. You should get experience for completing an objective. The amount of violence along the way shouldn't matter. If you have to capture a castle you should get experience for actually capturing the castle, not murdering every occupant you can possibly find and then leaving. Encounter-based experience punishes intelligent play by making the opportunity cost of not charging the dang phalanx too much to bear.

You mean "kill-based experience", I trust.

Actual "encounter-based experience" is "are successful in encounter -> XP". It's laid out pretty squarely in D&D 3.5, for instance, that you don't have to kill things to "defeat" them (though there are plenty of premade adventures that enforce killing, which is on those adventures rather than the system).

Now, I mean, there are other benefits to killing people ("taking their stuff" being the most obvious), but those benefits exist in RL too (along with certain risks, such as being arrested for burglary and murder). Killing people to take their stuff is a perfectly realistic and sensible motive... for an evil PC.

LibraryOgre
2015-04-05, 08:21 PM
Opponents should provide adequate challenge for their role, which means their optimization should be about on par with that of the party.

Did the folks complaining you didn't give extra XP for optimized enemies likewise complain that you didn't dock them XP because their characters were optimized about their level?

Talakeal
2015-04-05, 09:20 PM
Opponents should provide adequate challenge for their role, which means their optimization should be about on par with that of the party.

Did the folks complaining you didn't give extra XP for optimized enemies likewise complain that you didn't dock them XP because their characters were optimized about their level?

Well, I dont think they are arguing about my much Sp characters receive but how much they are worth. IE they wont get docked XP for good tactics, but they are worth more XP to whomever kills them. Not that this matters...

But I was more thinking about going beyond tactics and into metagame. For example the above mentioned strategy of finding a low CR monster and giving it precisely enough levels in a dissasociated buffing class to not increase the encounters CR.

Mr Beer
2015-04-05, 09:49 PM
But I was more thinking about going beyond tactics and into metagame. For example the above mentioned strategy of finding a low CR monster and giving it precisely enough levels in a dissasociated buffing class to not increase the encounters CR.

I think optimising the monster in a manner which specifically avoids awarding players any extra XP is pointless. If you really don't want to give them 200XP instead of 150XP, just house-rule that you only award 75% stated XP and build the monster how you like.

Tvtyrant
2015-04-05, 10:02 PM
Well, I dont think they are arguing about my much Sp characters receive but how much they are worth. IE they wont get docked XP for good tactics, but they are worth more XP to whomever kills them. Not that this matters...

But I was more thinking about going beyond tactics and into metagame. For example the above mentioned strategy of finding a low CR monster and giving it precisely enough levels in a dissasociated buffing class to not increase the encounters CR.

But that isn't really different than playing a highly optimized build is it? If I play a persistant spell Incantatrix than I am not going to take an XP penalty for being a better build than a Ranger.

Sith_Happens
2015-04-05, 10:08 PM
On a lot of threads (primarily those dealing with 3.5 class balance) I see people talking about how to build encounters "right" that involves giving the enemies every advantage they can without actually raising the CR. One example was giving every monster or group of monsters a bard assistant who was of a level and race just low enough that they would not increase the overall CR of the encounter at all.

Is this generally considered a good thing or a bad thing? To me it feels a bit too close to both metagaming and adversarial DMing.

It's downright cheating is what it is, at least with respect to the parts I bolded. It says right there in the book that anything you do in designing an encounter or customizing a monster that makes it significantly more difficult should be reflected by an EL/CR increase. But because it leaves the magnitude of that increase up in the air for anything that doesn't involve adding levels/hit dice certain DMs try to have their cake and eat it too by equating that to "Obviously it's really telling me to just keep it the same."

Flickerdart
2015-04-05, 10:22 PM
If you use the CR guidelines, you can build an encounter identical to the PCs' party in every way, down to class levels, except every one of the enemies is also a dragon on top of it. It's "fair" by the math, but there's no way the PCs can win. Or living fossil baboons riding monstrous crabs.

If you're looking for a governor on the DM's powers that will let him compete with the PCs on some kind of "fair" playing field (as opposed to being responsible for providing beatable encounters), CR is not going to be the answer.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-05, 11:16 PM
Let me separate this for the D&D rules. I think there are two questions here:

Is difficulty a fair objective for fights or problems that the GM presents to the players?
Should character advancement be tied to combat/problem difficulty?


Talk to your players, figure out what they expect/want, and give them that. You're deciding what they come up against and how often they level; CR and XP are just tools to help you decide how to do that.

kyoryu
2015-04-05, 11:17 PM
A) It really kinda depends on the group, and the game you're playing (not just system, but table expectations)

B) I really don't want to play with your group

Karl Aegis
2015-04-05, 11:47 PM
Your group is putting too much faith in the CR system. It doesn't work.

Bigger numbers don't actually change the nature of a challenge. If you have the resources ready to win you win. If you don't, you lose more than you should. A 30 hit dice scorpion isn't any more dangerous than a 3 hit dice scorpion. If you have ranged attacks you win. If you don't, you move in a different direction than where it is.

Exediron
2015-04-06, 12:13 AM
My answer to the question as phrased in the thread title: No.

My answer to the question as phrased in the opening post: Yes.

The CR system is supposed to reflect how challenging an encounter is, and reward the players accordingly. It doesn't actually do that very reliably, but that's the idea. Therefore I think deliberately designing your encounters to cheat the characters out of the XP they earned by defeating a powerful opponent is just that - cheating them. By doing that, you're making the statement that despite the clever tactics and unusual abilities employed by the monsters, the characters learned just as much from them as they would have if the monsters had fought dumb, and that's just wrong.

If you want to throw monsters at your party that they aren't expected to be able to beat do it, but don't hide behind the CR system and pretend that makes it fair somehow. If you stat up an uber-powerful monster and assign it a CR of 1 that doesn't make it a reasonable encounter for a level 1 party, and that's essentially what intentionally gaming the system to produce stronger monsters without raising their CR does.

Personally, I don't use CR and haven't for years - I assign a number based on how challenging the encounter was and how well the characters handled it, so a clever enemy or a more powerful enemy will always be worth more in my game regardless of what makes them more dangerous.


Bigger numbers don't actually change the nature of a challenge. If you have the resources ready to win you win. If you don't, you lose more than you should. A 30 hit dice scorpion isn't any more dangerous than a 3 hit dice scorpion. If you have ranged attacks you win. If you don't, you move in a different direction than where it is.

That's only true in a very narrow window of threats.

kyoryu
2015-04-06, 02:03 AM
I'd also say that encountering enemies in their home habitat, and having them use the abilities they have in an intelligent manner, should just be considered good GMing, at pretty much any table.

Doing stuff like adding a low-level bard that won't tip the CR... well, it depends on the game you're playing. If you're playing "people going through a believable world", it's BS. If you're playing "Four Heroic Heroes of Destiny on their Heroic Quest of Destiny", it's still probably BS. If you're playing "our charop vs. your charop", then it's totally legit.

GungHo
2015-04-06, 08:21 AM
This is why I don't like using a subjective rating system that masquerades as objective. You might as well argue about the placement of the field goal posts in a baseball game.

Eisenheim
2015-04-06, 10:43 AM
Thoughts:
gaming the CR system to hit players with encounters that 'count' as less difficult than they actually are is definitely bad DMing, because it's adversarial, which is bad.

Optimizing enemies tactically without giving more XP is really about group dynamics, and it will vary from table to table how much you should do it and whether you should give extra rewards when you do.

The notion of XP makes this entire question much harder to answer, because I think the real answer is that each encounter should be as difficult in terms of the stats and tactics of the NPCs as the narrative demands, and that the difficulty of individual encounters should have no bearing on the rewards the PCs receive, because those should also be defined by the narrative as well.

The only game I played with per-encounter, by-the-book XP rewards was 4th edition, and that system was one of the many things that led to my burning out on the system as a whole. I would recommend using an alternative, narrative based advancement method and thus simplifying the question of encounter difficulty by decoupling it from character advancement.

kyoryu
2015-04-06, 10:50 AM
ore XP is really about group dynamics, and it will vary from table to table how much you should do it and whether you should give extra rewards when you do.

I'd say this depends on the enemy and tactics, and the extent you go to.

An enemy that is clearly set up for hit-and-run tactics, and says so in its description, should probably use hit and run tactics. An enemy that lives in heat and lava should be expected to be found in heat and lava, and to use that to its advantage.

Now, deliberately setting up "cheese" for enemies is another situation entirely - having a dungeon area done specifically to cater to a particular tactic that relies on a very particular instance of enemies, for instance. But in general, enemies should use the tactics that it makes sense for them to use. Enemies with ranged attacks, high speed, and low durability aren't going to stand toe-to-toe with their opponents.

Jay R
2015-04-06, 11:11 AM
It can be done well or poorly. Concentrating on whether or not it's optimized instead of whether it's a good encounter for this group in this situation is probably poor DMing (or at least poor focus).

Good DMing is providing serious challenges with adequate rewards. Great DMing is making all the judgment calls necessary to make that happen.

Poor DMing is expecting CR rules to keep you from having to make judgment calls.

Roxxy
2015-04-06, 11:53 AM
It depends heavily on what the PCs want. Some players are pretty casual or like being the strong hero, and find overly intelligent enemies to just be frustrating. These players will likely find that enemy optimization ruins the game for them. Other players like gritty, realistic games where the enemy exploits every advantage possible, and it'll bug them if the enemy isn't very optimised. Often, these players want the game to be difficult. Most players are somewhere in between the two, not wanting too difficult a game, but not wanting something devoid of challenge, either. The GM needs to read the group and respond accordingly, or recruit players to fit their GMing style.

Flashy
2015-04-06, 12:04 PM
I'd also say that encountering enemies in their home habitat, and having them use the abilities they have in an intelligent manner, should just be considered good GMing, at pretty much any table.

This is so true. One of the tensest sessions I've ever played was our party being harrassed through mountains by a well prepared low level ranger.

Talakeal
2015-04-06, 04:02 PM
It depends heavily on what the PCs want. Some players are pretty casual or like being the strong hero, and find overly intelligent enemies to just be frustrating. These players will likely find that enemy optimization ruins the game for them. Other players like gritty, realistic games where the enemy exploits every advantage possible, and it'll bug them if the enemy isn't very optimised. Often, these players want the game to be difficult. Most players are somewhere in between the two, not wanting too difficult a game, but not wanting something devoid of challenge, either. The GM needs to read the group and respond accordingly, or recruit players to fit their GMing style.

I like gritty realistic games; hence why my players get mad at me for my enemies using good tactics.

On the other hand, I find that intentionally gaming the CR of an encounter actually be less realistic.


It's downright cheating is what it is, at least with respect to the parts I bolded. It says right there in the book that anything you do in designing an encounter or customizing a monster that makes it significantly more difficult should be reflected by an EL/CR increase. But because it leaves the magnitude of that increase up in the air for anything that doesn't involve adding levels/hit dice certain DMs try to have their cake and eat it too by equating that to "Obviously it's really telling me to just keep it the same."

While I agree with you in theory, there are a lot of times when this just can't be the case. For example, facing 5 enemies instead 4 enemies, giving an enemy a LA+0 template, or giving a monster a bonus feat will almost certainly increase the difficulty but the CR system lacks the granularity to actually measure these increases in power.

Mr Beer
2015-04-06, 05:51 PM
I like gritty realistic games; hence why my players get mad at me for my enemies using good tactics.

I get annoyed when every enemy arrives kitted out with a plethora of smart tactics, battlefield awareness and a ruthless determination to take down the party.

These things should be scaled IMO: mindless undead are borderline retarded, mooks are not smart, experienced warriors are smart and will use solid tactics and dragons are hugely cunning ancient bastards who will ruin unprepared parties.

Mr Beer
2015-04-06, 05:54 PM
While I agree with you in theory, there are a lot of times when this just can't be the case. For example, facing 5 enemies instead 4 enemies, giving an enemy a LA+0 template, or giving a monster a bonus feat will almost certainly increase the difficulty but the CR system lacks the granularity to actually measure these increases in power.

Just give them some extra XP then.

This thread contains two separate issues:

- The CR system is unwieldy. This can be easily fixed by giving out the amount of XP you choose and not worrying about it. Numerous easy fixes have been mentioned ITT.

- Your players getting annoyed by enemies using clever tactics. That requires some people management, perhaps compromise on your part and has nothing to do with XP discussions.

Talakeal
2015-04-06, 07:49 PM
I get annoyed when every enemy arrives kitted out with a plethora of smart tactics, battlefield awareness and a ruthless determination to take down the party.

These things should be scaled IMO: mindless undead are borderline retarded, mooks are not smart, experienced warriors are smart and will use solid tactics and dragons are hugely cunning ancient bastards who will ruin unprepared parties.

What is your definition of a "mook"?

While I agree that enemies should be played according to their intelligence, even most animals have an instinctive understanding of tactics and most minions have a smarter master pulling the strings.

I have also seen players throw a fit about animals or "mindless" undead doing basic things like utilizing the flanking or 5' step rules, which I think is taking it a bit too far.



Just give them some extra XP then.

This thread contains two separate issues:

- The CR system is unwieldy. This can be easily fixed by giving out the amount of XP you choose and not worrying about it. Numerous easy fixes have been mentioned ITT.

- Your players getting annoyed by enemies using clever tactics. That requires some people management, perhaps compromise on your part and has nothing to do with XP discussions.


Basically I was asking about DMs who, in my mind, are metagaming to provide an accurate challenge. I was just putting in a concession that I often get accused of doing similar things by playing my enemies smart or setting the encounter in actual terrain rather than an open field.



Also, it usually isn't an issue of XP, and I don't usually give per encounter XP anymore anyway. In my personal experience it is more often it is simply the players get extremely upset anytime they "lose" an encounter and throw accusations of unfair DMing my way.

kyoryu
2015-04-06, 07:58 PM
Also, it usually isn't an issue of XP, and I don't usually give per encounter XP anymore anyway. In my personal experience it is more often it is simply the players get extremely upset anytime they "lose" an encounter and throw accusations of unfair DMing my way.

Honestly, it depends. There are situations where it can be unfair DMing, but just losing an encounter don't make it so.

An archer on the other side of an uncrossable barrier, hidden behind exactly perfect terrain? Yeah, probably unfair. Ranged attackers that don't just tromp up to go toe-to-toe, or actually try to keep range? Totally not unfair.

I remember a guy here a few years posting about how some party got mad at him when they were newbs because he had an encounter that basically required Glitterdust, and their mage hadn't memorized it. That kind of stuff is just messed up. But getting mad because terrain *exists*, or because enemies don't just blindly march towards them is just insane.

Illven
2015-04-06, 07:59 PM
I have also seen players throw a fit about animals or "mindless" undead doing basic things like utilizing the flanking or 5' step rules, which I think is taking it a bit too far.

If it is mindless, I agree with your players here. I mean if a flank happens, it happens sucks to be them, but having the mindless thing go out of it's way to flank seems unrealistic for a creature with no brain power to be able to do.

Talakeal
2015-04-06, 08:44 PM
If it is mindless, I agree with your players here. I mean if a flank happens, it happens sucks to be them, but having the mindless thing go out of it's way to flank seems unrealistic for a creature with no brain power to be able to do.

Mindless is kind of a weird thing in D&D because the creature's still have Wisdom and Charisma scores and still act to defend themselves (they don't, for example, forego their reflex saves or dexterity bonuses), and they still have skills and such. It just seems really weird to me that you can, say, have a mindless creature with excellent combat skills (including a high BaB and a plethora or martial feats or class abilities) but lacking the ability to utilize the most basic tactics.

In my experience insects (or movie zombies for that matter) do attempt to swarm their opponents and have at least a semblance of self preservation.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-06, 09:05 PM
While I agree with you in theory, there are a lot of times when this just can't be the case. For example, facing 5 enemies instead 4 enemies, giving an enemy a LA+0 template, or giving a monster a bonus feat will almost certainly increase the difficulty but the CR system lacks the granularity to actually measure these increases in power.

The whole CR system is vague, so it's hard to say a feat, item or spell effect can or should raise the CR. There are no hard and fast rules here.


I get annoyed when every enemy arrives kitted out with a plethora of smart tactics, battlefield awareness and a ruthless determination to take down the party.

This is such a bad way to look at it, it's really a non-starter. You say ''not all the time, but like once every three fights is ok'', and they you will nitpick every fight and encounter. And having a player just sitting and judging every encounter by whatever random thoughts they have or feel like at the moment is a good way to ruin the game. After all, it will just take one lone goblin doing something you don't like to disrupt the game.




While I agree that enemies should be played according to their intelligence, even most animals have an instinctive understanding of tactics and most minions have a smarter master pulling the strings.

Even an intelligence of one is ''pretty smart''. Just look at animals. Oddly players want the kind of silly slapstick mook that trips and drops his weapon.



Basically I was asking about DMs who, in my mind, are metagaming to provide an accurate challenge. I was just putting in a concession that I often get accused of doing similar things by playing my enemies smart or setting the encounter in actual terrain rather than an open field.

The DM can't metagame. One of the DM's main jobs is to provide challenging combat in the game. And this needs to be planned out. The DM can't just randomly do things and expect it to work out. For there to be a challenge, the encounter needs to be built that way.

Karl Aegis
2015-04-06, 09:17 PM
Mindless and low intelligence enemies can still use basic tactics like flanking, 5 foot steps and staying on favorable terrain. The mindless enemies are probably programmed to stay behind cover until something gets close and then move to engage while the enemy is without cover so they can surround them. If the enemy gets behind cover, the mindless will probably retreat to their original position. It is exploitable behavior, sure, but at least it isn't charge indefinitely at something until it dies. That is quite unusual behavior; usually indicative of some sort of suicidal programming and your players should probably back away from it for fear of it exploding. If it doesn't explode, you have a plot hole: why does anyone expend resources on something that useless? That's right: it can replicate itself, possibly with eggs.

Your players just don't understand how animals work. Very few predators attack head-on. Very few people attack head-on without significant advantages. If they do, it is probably a distraction or out of desperation.

Talakeal
2015-04-06, 09:34 PM
The DM can't metagame. One of the DM's main jobs is to provide challenging combat in the game. And this needs to be planned out. The DM can't just randomly do things and expect it to work out. For there to be a challenge, the encounter needs to be built that way.

I don't think I agree with that.

Tailoring encounters specifically to tackle the PCs party when the NPCs have no reason to have the information seems to be both meta-gaming and adversarial.

For example, if I am playing Achilles and am invulnerable save for me heel, and this weakness is known to no one except my mother and the gods, it would be pretty weird if every mook in the world started focusing fire on my ankles, or if I was playing as Balder and was invulnerable to everything but mistletoe (again a secret known only to his mother and discovered by Loki) and suddenly every enemy I run across is wielding weapons carved from mistletoe, I think I would be pretty put off.

erikun
2015-04-06, 09:42 PM
Mindless is kind of a weird thing in D&D because the creature's still have Wisdom and Charisma scores and still act to defend themselves (they don't, for example, forego their reflex saves or dexterity bonuses), and they still have skills and such. It just seems really weird to me that you can, say, have a mindless creature with excellent combat skills (including a high BaB and a plethora or martial feats or class abilities) but lacking the ability to utilize the most basic tactics.

In my experience insects (or movie zombies for that matter) do attempt to swarm their opponents and have at least a semblance of self preservation.
A zombie and an insect, even though they both have INT --, would probably have different instincts. An insect would have some sense minor of self-preservation, and so retreat or make the most advantageous attack it can during its turn. A giant spider isn't likely to back off because it could attack a squishier wizard next turn, but a simply flanking because it is trying to find an opening makes sense.

Something like a zombie or a golem is completely mindless, and would gleefully just bash on whatever it has decided to without remorse. It wouldn't much care how much damage it is taking, and in a lot of situations, wouldn't care if it is having any effect. It would also just stand there and/or return to its "resting" spot if it couldn't attack anything, rather merrily just sitting around while the party pumps it full of arrows.

At least that's how I run my mindless zombies and golems.

Maglubiyet
2015-04-06, 10:09 PM
I get annoyed when every enemy arrives kitted out with a plethora of smart tactics, battlefield awareness and a ruthless determination to take down the party.

Smart tactics make sense -- anything still walking around in a fantasy world probably has some kind of successful survival strategy.

But fighting to the death is NOT a viable survival strategy. It would be more believable if these enemies had one or two very clever tricks to strike and then get away. Animals especially!

BluesEclipse
2015-04-06, 10:16 PM
You know... with all this discussion, it occurs to me that Wisdom would likely be better to govern tactical acumen than Intelligence. While INT covers what information a creature can learn and retain, and how complex the information it can understand, WIS would be better at describing how capable the creature is of adapting to changing circumstances and using existing information in different ways. Meaning a creature such as a Golem would have low WIS (being restricted pretty much entirely to programmed responses, they could fall into situations where they only work within predetermined boundaries, or will continue to try and reach an enemy even if they're completely inaccessible), things such as mindless undead would generally have extremely low wisdom (they'd have some minor ability to adapt tactics based on the situation, but just enough for things like pursuing an enemy beyond specific boundaries or changing targets if one is inaccessible), animals would have higher wisdom (pack/swarm tactics, knowing to hide in order to strike from surprise, and knowing to retreat when hurt or against an obviously superior predator).

Stellar_Magic
2015-04-06, 10:18 PM
Smart tactics make sense -- anything still walking around in a fantasy world probably has some kind of successful survival strategy.

But fighting to the death is NOT a viable survival strategy. It would be more believable if these enemies had one or two very clever tricks to strike and then get away. Animals especially!

Definitely... and if they can communicate, they could easily try and surrender when they're staring death in the face with low hp.


You know... with all this discussion, it occurs to me that Wisdom would likely be better to govern tactical acumen than Intelligence. While INT covers what information a creature can learn and retain, and how complex the information it can understand, WIS would be better at describing how capable the creature is of adapting to changing circumstances and using existing information in different ways. Meaning a creature such as a Golem would have low WIS (being restricted pretty much entirely to programmed responses, they could fall into situations where they only work within predetermined boundaries, or will continue to try and reach an enemy even if they're completely inaccessible), things such as mindless undead would generally have extremely low wisdom (they'd have some minor ability to adapt tactics based on the situation, but just enough for things like pursuing an enemy beyond specific boundaries or changing targets if one is inaccessible), animals would have higher wisdom (pack/swarm tactics, knowing to hide in order to strike from surprise, and knowing to retreat when hurt or against an obviously superior predator).

I think this is pretty much the official ruling on that, as smart pack hunters have pretty high wisdom scores most of the time.

Gritmonger
2015-04-06, 10:29 PM
This reminds me of another recent thread - I think it was on morale, and enemy behavior.

For a standard predator, there are several behaviors. For lone predators, consider that gaining a meal is not worth it if one is then too injured to take on the next meal. So at some point, a predator is going to cut its losses. Look at the shark - it tries to jump in, do enough damage to cause massive blood loss, then backs off and waits for the prey to stop struggling and die. The tiger ambushes and overpowers, going for the throat to quickly dispatch prey. Both will back off if substantially challenged by multiple or strong prey.

Pack predators (or pride predators, or other grouping/swarming predators) rely on the group to take a prey animal down, and will alternate trying to get on the blind side of a prey animal, and in some cases chasing a fleeing animal down and trying to exhaust it. Lionesses actually drive prey into ambushes, something that makes them potentially deadlier than simply a cluster of animals. Both will try and isolate and assault one prey animal instead of taking on an entire group or herd.

Many solitary predators are ambush predators - some with traps (spiders) some with modified terrain (ant lions) some who try and incapacitate prey (crocodiles and rolling/drowning) some who try and restrain it (constrictors, spiders), all of whom will flee if they are overwhelmed.

Pack or pride predators will follow the lead of a dominant animal, so while it might seem unfair to allow pack tactics and flanking, it's natural for pack or pride animals, and gives the Ranger or Druid the opportunity to identify the one animal that if taken out could break the pack or pride.

Mr Beer
2015-04-06, 11:14 PM
This is such a bad way to look at it, it's really a non-starter. You say ''not all the time, but like once every three fights is ok'', and they you will nitpick every fight and encounter. And having a player just sitting and judging every encounter by whatever random thoughts they have or feel like at the moment is a good way to ruin the game. After all, it will just take one lone goblin doing something you don't like to disrupt the game.

This is a wilfully negative interpretation of what I said, particularly as I provided examples of my reasoning in a paragraph which you ignored in favour of making silly complaints about my playing style...something that you know nothing about.

Mr Beer
2015-04-06, 11:19 PM
Basically I was asking about DMs who, in my mind, are metagaming to provide an accurate challenge. I was just putting in a concession that I often get accused of doing similar things by playing my enemies smart or setting the encounter in actual terrain rather than an open field.

Also, it usually isn't an issue of XP, and I don't usually give per encounter XP anymore anyway. In my personal experience it is more often it is simply the players get extremely upset anytime they "lose" an encounter and throw accusations of unfair DMing my way.

OK, so CR isn't really the issue, agreed.

It's impossible to know, as usual if the guys you play with actually play as you say they do, they're a bunch of absurdly childish crybabies and you should find less awful people to game with.

In general, it makes sense for monsters to try to win a fight and given that D&D often assumes that they're impossibly violent bags of HP that wander around looking for adventurers to kill, it makes sense that they'd be good at fighting. This includes at least elementary tactics for anything that has a functioning mind. That's all part of the game, if you want anything approaching realism.

Given that there is almost literally nothing more dangerous in a D&D world than adventurers (this threat assessment combines raw power and their propensity to constantly seek out lethal situations), then powerful and intelligent monsters would presumably use highly 'unfair' tactics as much as (in)humanly possible.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-07, 12:14 AM
Tailoring encounters specifically to tackle the PCs party when the NPCs have no reason to have the information seems to be both meta-gaming and adversarial.

The only way to make the game a challenge is to make and tailor encounters to the player characters. You can't just do random encounters with random foes and things, it will never work. And even more so adding in keeping the game fun.

Gameworld-wise it's not so much that the NPC ''metagames'' to know all about the PC, it's more that they are just clever/smart/tricky/whatever and just happened to have a counter.



For example, if I am playing Achilles and am invulnerable save for me heel, and this weakness is known to no one except my mother and the gods, it would be pretty weird if every mook in the world started focusing fire on my ankles, or if I was playing as Balder and was invulnerable to everything but mistletoe (again a secret known only to his mother and discovered by Loki) and suddenly every enemy I run across is wielding weapons carved from mistletoe, I think I would be pretty put off.

Well, sure if you want to just use the two extremely insane examples. So, lets say the PC is not a greater god of the Norse pantheon with one silly story-full weakness........

Lets say you just have a PC fighter, with a sword and shield. Note they have no silly weakness. Now for a fight to be a challenge the foe must have a good chance to win. So you can't really just plop down any random foe or monster, the DM needs to make sure it will be a challenge. And how does the DM do that? Well, they look over the PC. Then they tailor the foe to be able to defeat the PC. For example, an evil enchantress and her charmed minions makes a great foe for a fighter type as they have a poor will save. And on top of that you want the game to be fun too.

If a NPC or monster does nothing other then sit there and wait for the PC's to kill it....that makes the game very boring(and a lot like a video game).

And it's not like ''well the PC's have fire based attacks, so I'll planeshift the whole would to the Elemental Plane of Fire so all the PC's attacks are useless...HAHAHA''. That is like insane DM stuff.

Talakeal
2015-04-07, 01:50 AM
The only way to make the game a challenge is to make and tailor encounters to the player characters. You can't just do random encounters with random foes and things, it will never work. And even more so adding in keeping the game fun.

Gameworld-wise it's not so much that the NPC ''metagames'' to know all about the PC, it's more that they are just clever/smart/tricky/whatever and just happened to have a counter.



Well, sure if you want to just use the two extremely insane examples. So, lets say the PC is not a greater god of the Norse pantheon with one silly story-full weakness........

Lets say you just have a PC fighter, with a sword and shield. Note they have no silly weakness. Now for a fight to be a challenge the foe must have a good chance to win. So you can't really just plop down any random foe or monster, the DM needs to make sure it will be a challenge. And how does the DM do that? Well, they look over the PC. Then they tailor the foe to be able to defeat the PC. For example, an evil enchantress and her charmed minions makes a great foe for a fighter type as they have a poor will save. And on top of that you want the game to be fun too.

If a NPC or monster does nothing other then sit there and wait for the PC's to kill it....that makes the game very boring(and a lot like a video game).

And it's not like ''well the PC's have fire based attacks, so I'll planeshift the whole would to the Elemental Plane of Fire so all the PC's attacks are useless...HAHAHA''. That is like insane DM stuff.

First off, Baldur and Achilles were just the first things that came to my mind. If you like replace that with any sort of weakness (A werewolf's weakness to silver, a fey's to iron, vampires to holy symbols, superman to kryptonite, green lantern to the color yellow, wu jen with prohibitions, mages with conditional magic, etc.) or with monsters who are themselves immune or highly resistant to the player's main form of attack (say swarms and ethereal monsters for the aforementioned fighter, assuming he is low level, or mindless creatures against an enchanter) or just monsters who don't use any of the attack types that the players have defenses against (say if they find a ring of fire resistance and never fight a fire breathing monster again).

But let me say that unless I am setting up an encounter with a recurring villain or someone who is specifically hunting down / defending against the players and has the ability to research them I do not do any of them, at least not intentionally.

Generally I simply take into account the level of the area (and keep in mind this isn't usually as a reaction to the PCs, rather the PCs don't choose to go on adventures into areas that are out of their league or not worthy of their time) and then generate cool and internally consistent encounters which would inhabit that area. Likewise I don't usually need to customize random encounter tables or premade modules to the parties combat strengths.

I have never really had a need to break verisimilitude when designing an encounter to get a balanced encounter. Indeed, I actively stopped doing so 10-15 years ago when my players started complaining about a phenomenon they dubbed the "Cycle of stupidity" where they would optimize their characters for combat so I would throw tougher enemies at them, and in response they would optimize even harder, and I would through stronger enemies at them, and so on until the game started to feel less like a living world and more like a shonen anime composed of training montages and increasingly over the top threats.

shadow_archmagi
2015-04-07, 08:35 AM
On the other hand, I have often been criticized for not giving extra "XP" when a monster uses its spells to buff itself, is fighting on its own turf and is thus ideal for the habitat, or uses hit and run tactics.

That's silly. "The shark should be worth more because it was IN WATER!"



Abusing the CR system

That's even sillier. The CR system is a guideline for DMs; manipulating your encounter to technically be CR-appropriate is like lying on a personality test, or topping off your gas tank so that the needle never moves from F and you can pretend you have infinite fuel.


There's also no objective answer to your question because every party has different needs.

Stellar_Magic
2015-04-07, 11:53 AM
At best the CR system is meant as a rough guideline... If a supposedly 'average' encounter is rough for the PCs, go ahead and bump the XP up. By the same token if a 'challenging' encounter is bested easily, drop the xp earned.

Milodiah
2015-04-07, 12:14 PM
I've often had problems with the CR system in D&D, partly because I was an inexperienced DM at the time (I still am in terms of D&D, since I've moved to different games since, and only have about a dozen sessions or so under my belt and only thirty minutes of being a player).

The campaign I was running at the time focused somewhat heavily on humanoid foes, given it was a city watchmen campaign...the solution was, of course, rather simple...build groups of somewhat equivalent level to the PCs using streamlined PC creation rules. Naturally it wasn't time-efficient, but it did end up making pretty balanced encounters.

In general, however, I almost always believe in enemy optimization, so long as one defines "optimization" as building them to be good at their jobs; from what I've extrapolated this is apparently being construed as "use GM knowledge to tailor the opposition towards the PCs' weaknesses up to an unfair, unreasonable degree"...obviously that's bad.

The obvious solution I find to ensure PCs continue facing increasingly-dangerous opponents without it seeming that they get more dangerous only because the PCs did as well is to ensure they have appropriately scaling assignments/missions/quests/whathaveyou. I don't believe in the whole "give the Sword of 1000 Truths to a noob" approach, where the huge over-arching plot gets tossed at the PCs at level one and they fight towards what's clearly a high-level endpoint the whole time even though each individual encounter is miraculously scaled to them. Like I said earlier, I was running a City Watch campaign, in which they started at level one. The first few levels/sessions were them getting into the setting, feeling out their roles in the party, getting to know one another in-character, etc. There were things like some poor sap being attacked by the standard fantasy oversized vermin, a mentally-ill barbarian breaking every mirror he saw, an arson, and even Papers, Please style gate duty. A lot of it dropped clues as to the overarching plots that were approaching, but I deliberately chose not to say "So, you're sitting around at first level one Thursday evening, and some mind flayer conspiracy or whatever walks up and takes over the kingdom. Gee, you guys should level up fifteen or so times while dealing with that, then deal with that!"

Darth Ultron
2015-04-07, 02:09 PM
I have never really had a need to break verisimilitude when designing an encounter to get a balanced encounter. Indeed, I actively stopped doing so 10-15 years ago when my players started complaining about a phenomenon they dubbed the "Cycle of stupidity" where they would optimize their characters for combat so I would throw tougher enemies at them, and in response they would optimize even harder, and I would through stronger enemies at them, and so on until the game started to feel less like a living world and more like a shonen anime composed of training montages and increasingly over the top threats.

The trick is for the DM to hit the sweet spot: to make encounters a challenge, but not too hard. The DM is not exactly ''optimizing'', they are just making a challenge to be over come.

I wonder how you even design an encounter? You don't take in to account anything about the PCs, right? Not even level? So, how do you just randomly make a challenging, but purely generic, encounter? How do you handle little things like flight or underwater? A all melee group will have a hard time with a ''random generic'' flying monster encounter, no matter the CR. The same is true for underwater. So how does that work with your method of ''the DM pretends he knows nothing at all about the PC?''

A wight and some skeletons can be an EL 4 encounter, but it really depends on who they encounter. An all cleric party will find the undead very easy, even a group with two clerics will have an easy time. On the other hand, a group with no cleric might have a hard time....or maybe not.

And a single encounter with something the group can't effectively hurt will be a disastrous encounter even if it's all perfectly EL/CR matched to the character's levels.

sktarq
2015-04-07, 02:14 PM
One should optimize the enemy about as much as the PC's are optimized. How much planning and tactics the enemies use should match their Int, wis, and possible Cha scores and skill would indicate plus any training or prep time they may have had.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-07, 02:19 PM
One should optimize the enemy about as much as the PC's are optimized. How much planning and tactics the enemies use should match their Int, wis, and possible Cha scores and skill would indicate plus any training or prep time they may have had.

This is just to vague to work, but sure it sounds all fair and balanced.

The DM needs to make encounters challenging, not ''matched optimized exactly to the PCs''.

sktarq
2015-04-07, 02:54 PM
This is just to vague to work, but sure it sounds all fair and balanced.

The DM needs to make encounters challenging, not ''matched optimized exactly to the PCs''.

No its not. On a game wide level the amount of "optimization" of the foes should be around the same as the players. If the players spend points on Profession: Baker then saying that the hobgoblins each have a point or two in Perform (Dance) is totally reasonable. If the players are highly focused on getting another +1 equivalence on their weapon via daily buff spells etc then having the rest of the world have a similar mindset is totally legit-and the Cossak style dancing at Hobogoblin social events is untrained.

And personally I think tactics etc of the foes should be rather independent of PC optimization but those who like thinking about tactics etc will get a more out of foes that have their own tactical abilities- so those kinds of players that like using such things are the best place to turn the tables-so there is also a rough matching system there.

And since the more optimized a PC is the tougher a challenge is needed optimizing the foe provides the challenge it acts a good if rough system to make sure challenges are challenging

BayardSPSR
2015-04-07, 03:52 PM
No its not. On a game wide level the amount of "optimization" of the foes should be around the same as the players. If the players spend points on Profession: Baker then saying that the hobgoblins each have a point or two in Perform (Dance) is totally reasonable. If the players are highly focused on getting another +1 equivalence on their weapon via daily buff spells etc then having the rest of the world have a similar mindset is totally legit-and the Cossak style dancing at Hobogoblin social events is untrained.

Now that you mention it, I feel like having Cossack-dancing a part of Hobgoblin culture would add a lot more to a game than having them marginally more threatening.

Especially since you can always make them more threatening by adding a couple more of them.

Talakeal
2015-04-07, 04:02 PM
The trick is for the DM to hit the sweet spot: to make encounters a challenge, but not too hard. The DM is not exactly ''optimizing'', they are just making a challenge to be over come.

I wonder how you even design an encounter? You don't take in to account anything about the PCs, right? Not even level? So, how do you just randomly make a challenging, but purely generic, encounter? How do you handle little things like flight or underwater? A all melee group will have a hard time with a ''random generic'' flying monster encounter, no matter the CR. The same is true for underwater. So how does that work with your method of ''the DM pretends he knows nothing at all about the PC?''

A wight and some skeletons can be an EL 4 encounter, but it really depends on who they encounter. An all cleric party will find the undead very easy, even a group with two clerics will have an easy time. On the other hand, a group with no cleric might have a hard time....or maybe not.

And a single encounter with something the group can't effectively hurt will be a disastrous encounter even if it's all perfectly EL/CR matched to the character's levels.

I have never had a group of "all one thing" before, and I have to imagine that is an extreme edge case as I can't recall anyone ever even considering such a game outside of a gimmick one shot.

An undead encounter against a party with 2 clerics will be slightly easier, and slightly harder with no clerics, but in neither case will it be impossible for one side or the other. Sure party makeup has some minor fluctuations, but they even out in the end, and allowing them to exist helps the players feel like their choices actually matter.

As for level, generally I balance that by area and don't give PCs adventures that send them out of their range. I believe I already mentioned this, but, for example, if the PCs are known to be level 8 or so, no one is going to come to them asking them to assassinate the level 20 dark overlord in his kingdom of demons and doom. Likewise if someone offers to pay them 10gp for clear out a nest of kobolds near their farm the PCs are probably going to say it isn't worth their time.

As for an underwater encounter, if the PCs don't have the ability to deal with it, why are they going into the water in the first place?

BayardSPSR
2015-04-07, 05:01 PM
As for an underwater encounter, if the PCs don't have the ability to deal with it, why are they going into the water in the first place?

Because that's what PCs do?

Seerow
2015-04-07, 09:08 PM
If the DM abuses options not available to players to artificially boost XP, sometimes it can get annoying (cough advanced hit dice/stupid templates/Nonassociated class levels cough)

That pair of 1 HD CR 1 elementals at level 1 is a piece of cake. That pair of 5 HD CR 2 elementals using earthglide with hit and run tactics throwing rocks....
I know CR2 is tougher than CR1s, but come on...Are you telling me two 2nd level fighters with shortswords and chain shirts are going to be that big of a challenge?.

I'm springboarding off this post not to pick on it, but because it touches on the subject that seems most interesting to me.

Because while using HD boosting, nonassociated class levels, and NPC classes I tend to see not as cheesy annoyances, but absolutely mandatory ways to pull NPCs up to the point of being an acceptable challenge without spending hours creating optimized PC builds to use for every enemy.

In general the advantages of using boosted HD are higher HP and attack bonus, while the advantage of using naturally higher CR monsters is better stats, higher base damage output, and (usually) better unique abilities. But when you are just looking for some grunts/mooks, it's generally more efficient to toss a bunch of HD or weaker class levels on the creature. And sometimes, even when you want an elite encounter, you want to both have some level appropriate class abilities and be a bit more durable than an individual PC.

I mean just as an example, what makes a better CR3 creature, a level 3 Warblade or a Warrior4/Warblade 1? My experience is typically the latter, because it ends with a character that is more likely to survive a round or two against the PCs and be able to hit them. And the higher the CR you look at and/or the more creatures you want to fit into an encounter, the more true that gets.


And while yes, a Humanoid12 vs Warrior 6 vs Fighter 3 are going to produce dramatically different levels of power at the same CR (3 in this case), but it's all about balancing the end encounter against the capability of the party. While loading up a human with a ton of humanoid hitdice is kind of nonsensical (I made a class based around that concept as a joke a while ago), by mid levels I tend to see giving 4 humanoid hit dice practically a must to almost any humanoid opponent the party encounters.

While taking a monster with a high wisdom and calling Druid/Cleric non-associated because it doesn't have druid/cleric casting is generally bad (especially if it ends up making the monster portion completely free compared to just being a humanoid), doing things like a troll battle sorcerer can occasionally be fun and much more satisfying than a troll Fighter/Warblade.

As far as I am concerned there is no problem ever with adding Warrior/Expert/Adept levels at half CR or Commoner at 1/3rd CR. Generally I try to avoid going beyond level 6 in any NPC class. I also frequently use hit dice boosting, not just for monsters, but for humans, but only up to double their hit dice or +1 CR worth of hit dice, whichever is higher. So a common grunt in my campaigns at mid level might be a Human Humanoid4/Warrior6, for a total CR of 4. In a CR 10 encounter you can have 4 of those guys plus a custom CR8 leader, or 8 of them. Which tends to work out to be a much more satisfying encounter overall than a Fighter 4 which is what they would have without using CR work arounds.

The argument against this is usually that PCs don't get those kinds of returns, but honestly? So what? That disconnect between PCs and NPCs is already prevalent in the CR system the second you hit any creature with LA or Racial Hit Dice. An ogre is a CR3 but a level 6 player character. A Troll is CR5, but a level 11 player character. So if I create a custom humanoid who is technically a 10th level player character but CR4, that seems to fit the mold pretty well to me.

It doesn't apply just to humanoids, the same arguments can be made for advancing other creatures you want to use as standard muscle. Giants and Animals especially can be kept relevant much longer through utilizing advancement. The big thing to remember is the advancement is pretty much just granting numbers. Using the advancement makes these things better at soaking damage and connecting a hit, but ultimately if you want to increase the challenge for high level players (especially casters) you're going to have to look at creatures with a higher base CR, or using more PC class levels on casting, which leaves less room for fiddling with the other things.

Now if you abuse this you can totally overmatch PCs. The above mentioned Humanoid4/Warrior6 may be a CR4 encounter, but is probably going to overpower a level 2 party even though it's only CR+2, especially if given a decent feat selection. But the point isn't to use the mechanics to throw something that overpowers the party's numbers while hiding and saying "haha the rules say this is okay!" the point is to be able to provide enemies that the party will interact with without walking over effortlessly. Because sometimes you want an encounter with 4+ enemies that are not all going to fall over to a stiff breeze but is not supposed to be a near death experience death match for the party either. That, to me, is what the advancement and CR adjustment rules are able to provide.



tl;dr: I like and use regularly things like hit dice advancement, nonassociated class levels, and NPC classes. I feel these have a legitimate place in encounter building, and tend to produce far more appropriate challenges than just throwing NPCs with standard class levels at the players.

Mr.Moron
2015-04-07, 09:43 PM
I find taking a systematic approach to building enemies/encounters to be some combination of tedious, inefficient, and ineffective. I think if we're talking about "Optimization" that means the GM is already taking a pretty structured approach to things, which I already think tends to produce inferior results. The poor GMing happened a few steps before Optimization entered the picture.

I'm always an advocate for just giving things the stats they need to provide the proper engagement "CR" or default build rules be damned. The game is going to better for everyone once you take the straight jacket off.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-07, 10:51 PM
I have never had a group of "all one thing" before, and I have to imagine that is an extreme edge case as I can't recall anyone ever even considering such a game outside of a gimmick one shot.

Well, single class games are common enough. But we also need to include games that are missing a so-called standard party mix, or the game with a unique non-standard character in the slot.



As for an underwater encounter, if the PCs don't have the ability to deal with it, why are they going into the water in the first place?

In a ''normal'' adventure, the PC's might not have a choice. They might want to, for example, swim into the fortress by the underground waterway. Guarded by some sort of aquatic monster.

goto124
2015-04-08, 11:01 PM
In a 'normal' game, there will be a way to handle the water thing. Otherwise that's just poor DMing.

The party could choose to buy some underwater breathing spells. They could choose to not go there, in which case the DM must allow them to go an alternate path. And so on.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-08, 11:09 PM
In a 'normal' game, there will be a way to handle the water thing. Otherwise that's just poor DMing.

The party could choose to buy some underwater breathing spells. They could choose to not go there, in which case the DM must allow them to go an alternate path. And so on.

Well, not every game does the boring wal-mart thing. When the players just want to buy their way out of any problem, the game becomes pointless.

And not ever game does the Limited Focus thing where the DM makes things easy for by making the campaign a square mile in size.

In a normal game, in a normal adventure, PC's will come across thing like an underground river that they don't have weeks to prepare to jump in or that the DM just tells them about before the game.

goto124
2015-04-08, 11:11 PM
They might have to hunt for a shop that sells the spell. They might have to pay in a special price other than gold. Many possibilities is what I mean.

Your kind of game seems to be the sandboxy one. Nothing inherently wrong with it. Same for more linear campaigns, which are often just to make it easier on the players' mind (I notice your style isn't really suited for inexperienced players. Again, nothing inherently wrong with that).

BayardSPSR
2015-04-09, 12:46 AM
In a normal game, in a normal adventure, PC's will come across thing like an underground river that they don't have weeks to prepare to jump in or that the DM just tells them about before the game.

Why would the GM do that, knowing they were completely unprepared for it? I don't see the point.

SixWingedAsura
2015-04-09, 01:49 AM
There's also the unfortunate circumstance of having a party full of people who don't want a challenge, but instead want to be murder gods, raping and pillaging the world until they become ubergods.

Or something. :smallannoyed:

Jay R
2015-04-09, 12:32 PM
Why would the GM do that, knowing they were completely unprepared for it? I don't see the point.

Because it's fun to try to work out how to handle the unexpected, of course.

Darth Ultron
2015-04-09, 01:13 PM
Why would the GM do that, knowing they were completely unprepared for it? I don't see the point.

Ok, I kinda understand your coming from the more modern way of gaming where the DM tells the players all the game details ahead of time or the DM has a Wal-Mart/Magic Mart always just around the corner from where ever the PC's are at the time.

And then there is the more classic way of gaming:

The PC's get to the evil guys castle. The DM has told them no details about the castle or the story and the closest town is about a days travel away. The PC's are a standard group of characters. And the PC's want to sneak into the castle.

After some looking around, the PC's find some caves with an underground river, and discover the river flows through some caves under the castle. It's the perfect way to sneak in. Though it will require the group swimming underwater and holding their breath. They do so, and discover the evil guy has tossed a couple of aquatic monsters down there as guards. So the PC's are stuck, fighting unprepared underwater, against some aquatic monsters.

It's a very normal adventure like plot. And it's a classic ''fish out of water'' and ''crazy dangerous sneak in''. And it's fun.

Talakeal
2015-04-09, 03:48 PM
They might have to hunt for a shop that sells the spell. They might have to pay in a special price other than gold. Many possibilities is what I mean.

Your kind of game seems to be the sandboxy one. Nothing inherently wrong with it. Same for more linear campaigns, which are often just to make it easier on the players' mind (I notice your style isn't really suited for inexperienced players. Again, nothing inherently wrong with that).

Might I ask who you are talking to here? None of the views attributed in this thread really scream "sandbox" to me.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-09, 04:07 PM
Ok, I kinda understand your coming from the more modern way of gaming where the DM tells the players all the game details ahead of time or the DM has a Wal-Mart/Magic Mart always just around the corner from where ever the PC's are at the time.

And then there is the more classic way of gaming:

The PC's get to the evil guys castle. The DM has told them no details about the castle or the story and the closest town is about a days travel away. The PC's are a standard group of characters. And the PC's want to sneak into the castle.

After some looking around, the PC's find some caves with an underground river, and discover the river flows through some caves under the castle. It's the perfect way to sneak in. Though it will require the group swimming underwater and holding their breath. They do so, and discover the evil guy has tossed a couple of aquatic monsters down there as guards. So the PC's are stuck, fighting unprepared underwater, against some aquatic monsters.

It's a very normal adventure like plot. And it's a classic ''fish out of water'' and ''crazy dangerous sneak in''. And it's fun.

Okay, that makes more sense than "This is the underwater episode! Too bad you aren't prepared!" which was how I was reading it.

And yeah, you've got me decently pegged. I've been gaming for years, not decades; I care about why the PCs want to sneak into the castle, not just how they do it; "standard" and "normal" are my kryptonite; and I resent D&D for norming rules, practices, and tropes that I think are Bad and Wrong.

In my defense, however, the Wal-Mart thing is one of the things I think is Bad and Wrong from D&D. Maybe it's because I haven't spent my whole life in developed countries and "you can buy everything you want" doesn't seem realistic to me in real life, either.

goto124
2015-04-09, 07:14 PM
Okay, that makes more sense than "This is the underwater episode! Too bad you aren't prepared!" which was how I was reading it.

I'm starting to feel there's something wrong with me.

Because I read it and it still feels like that.

The DM knew the players had to hold their breaths underwater.

So why throw underwater creatures at them?

I could understand it if there were air caves or such.

Or if the underwater mechanics aren't quite the Insta-Kill situation I imagine.

Otherwise... not really. :smallannoyed:

Exediron
2015-04-09, 08:43 PM
I'm starting to feel there's something wrong with me.

Because I read it and it still feels like that.

The DM knew the players had to hold their breaths underwater.

So why throw underwater creatures at them?

The DM didn't 'throw underwater creatures at them' in the hypothetical scenario; the characters made a choice and it had consequences. The example party weren't forced into the water in any way.

Sith_Happens
2015-04-09, 08:44 PM
I'm starting to feel there's something wrong with me.

Because I read it and it still feels like that.

The DM knew the players had to hold their breaths underwater.

So why throw underwater creatures at them?

I could understand it if there were air caves or such.

Or if the underwater mechanics aren't quite the Insta-Kill situation I imagine.

Otherwise... not really. :smallannoyed:

In many game systems the length of time you can reliably hold your breath for can be summed up as "longer than you'll ever need to worry about unless the entire adventure is underwater." The real problem comes from how much harder it is to move around, and/or the armor that some of the PCs might have had to take off before getting in the water in the first place.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-09, 09:13 PM
I'm starting to feel there's something wrong with me.

Because I read it and it still feels like that.

The difference for me is that the players have options other than going into the water. If it's "the underwater episode," there's no way that session could be fair to the players. If the players are choosing to go underwater, and can choose to do other things, then it's not always unfair for there to be an encounter in that environment. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that it will be fair - it will still depend on how it's handled - but it can be done in a fair way.

goto124
2015-04-09, 09:31 PM
I guess you'll have to be careful to make the players actually feel like they were the ones who really make the choice to go underwater.

Such as pointing out the other choices, and making them (seem) just as fair as the underwater option.

When the players snuck inside the castle, did they do it because they really wanted to, or because they thought that was the direction of the plot?

What about the cave? Perhaps the players thought the underground river was the only way?

Darth Ultron
2015-04-09, 10:41 PM
In my defense, however, the Wal-Mart thing is one of the things I think is Bad and Wrong from D&D. Maybe it's because I haven't spent my whole life in developed countries and "you can buy everything you want" doesn't seem realistic to me in real life, either.

Well, I do live in one of them developed countries with lots of stores and shopping centers and malls. I can get to lots of Wal-Marts in an hour or less.


I'm starting to feel there's something wrong with me.
Because I read it and it still feels like that.
The DM knew the players had to hold their breaths underwater.
So why throw underwater creatures at them?
I could understand it if there were air caves or such.
Or if the underwater mechanics aren't quite the Insta-Kill situation I imagine.
Otherwise... not really. :smallannoyed:

In a more classic campaign, things can just happen. One round the characters are in a tavern, and a couple rounds later they are in the sewers. And once in the sewers they encounter deep water and aquatic monsters. But it's not like the DM stops the game and has each character go shopping or create aquatic sewer based characters. It's just ''jump into the sewers''.


I guess you'll have to be careful to make the players actually feel like they were the ones who really make the choice to go underwater.

Such as pointing out the other choices, and making them (seem) just as fair as the underwater option.

When the players snuck inside the castle, did they do it because they really wanted to, or because they thought that was the direction of the plot?

What about the cave? Perhaps the players thought the underground river was the only way?

It's always so odd when a player expects like a dozen ways from A to B.

The Evil DM
2015-04-09, 10:45 PM
The answer depends. If you are optimizing the enemies to cheese out an encounter with direct counters against the players abilities. Yes. Otherwise if the set canon in the particular story indicates that a foe will use particular tactics then no.

I myself run a game which is a very detailed sandbox. Players have the freedom to design their own quests, make their own objectives. The story of the world rolls on around them and the players might choose to get involved or they may not. The higher the level of the characters the more they have the capability to impact the global storyline in some manner.

How this plays out for enemy optimization is as follows.

The game environment - which includes physical environment such as landscape, terrain, and the social environment such as cultures and politics is what enemies optimize against. If a forest contains goblins, the goblins are going to be optimized for survival in their forest environment. They may have abilities to hunt, trap, and possibly engage in banditry against nearby villages. They will have skills that reflect their life and society in this particular environment.

If characters attack the goblins in such a manner that their skills are useful and these skills put the players at a disadvantage, this is the players folly. If the players use their brains a little, learn about the goblins and how they live they can position themselves tactically to deny the goblins advantage.

The goblins are not actually skilled against PCs they are merely living their lives and surviving to the best of their ability within the environment.

Stellar_Magic
2015-04-09, 11:42 PM
The answer depends. If you are optimizing the enemies to cheese out an encounter with direct counters against the players abilities. Yes. Otherwise if the set canon in the particular story indicates that a foe will use particular tactics then no.

I myself run a game which is a very detailed sandbox. Players have the freedom to design their own quests, make their own objectives. The story of the world rolls on around them and the players might choose to get involved or they may not. The higher the level of the characters the more they have the capability to impact the global storyline in some manner.

How this plays out for enemy optimization is as follows.

The game environment - which includes physical environment such as landscape, terrain, and the social environment such as cultures and politics is what enemies optimize against. If a forest contains goblins, the goblins are going to be optimized for survival in their forest environment. They may have abilities to hunt, trap, and possibly engage in banditry against nearby villages. They will have skills that reflect their life and society in this particular environment.

If characters attack the goblins in such a manner that their skills are useful and these skills put the players at a disadvantage, this is the players folly. If the players use their brains a little, learn about the goblins and how they live they can position themselves tactically to deny the goblins advantage.

The goblins are not actually skilled against PCs they are merely living their lives and surviving to the best of their ability within the environment.

This is a good point of view, and one I would encourage. I always feel that designing encounters should go hand in hand with world building. If you're fighting a goblin conscript or slave of some hobgoblin warband it should be a different experience then fighting a goblin defending his home. Each would be built differently... and fight differently.

That conscript? I'd build him as commoner 2/warrior 1 for a CR 1 foe. The goblin warrior defending his home? expert 1/warrior 2 for a CR 1 foe.

One of the things I liked about the Pathfinder GM guide was that it ejected the notion that 98% of npcs were level 1 commoners... Hell, the suggested stats for a typical farmer are expert 1/commoner 1. Now... one thing I would encourage any gm would be to establish how common the various levels of npc are in the world, as well as how rare PC classes are. You don't have to say it, but if you have a level 1 goblin sorcerer mixed into the band of level 1 goblin warriors, they'll get a different impression then fighting through a bunch of rooms before encountering something besides a level 1 warrior.

Now, optimization means a lot of things. Tailoring an encounter for a specific party makeup is something I'd avoid... because you never know when a party's lineup can change due to death... missed days, or whatever. Plus, it just pisses people off when the enemy has clearly been specifically designed for them in mind.

But... an encounter or dungeon should be built to be a significant challenge. This often requires optimization.

One simple thing I think a lot of GM's fail to consider is mixing ranged foes firing from what appears to be currently unreachable locations and close range foes for that level x fighter to work on. In some ways optimizing an encounter will lead to even more lopsided fights if the PCs decide to get creative... as optimized tends to run pretty close to 'specialized' and that's usually something PCs can derail in an instant.

This doesn't mean a DM shouldn't mix up encounters by throwing extra HD (though I think that's the least creative way to do it) or class levels on creatures. Admittedly the idea of an Ogre bard is pretty laughable... but a Succubus bard with some lower level demonic or mortal followers?

Nothing wrong with that one in my opinion... and hell, Succubus bard or sorcerer sounds pretty damned optimized as a foe, doesn't it?

Jay R
2015-04-10, 09:08 AM
I guess you'll have to be careful to make the players actually feel like they were the ones who really make the choice to go underwater.

Such as pointing out the other choices, and making them (seem) just as fair as the underwater option.

When the players snuck inside the castle, did they do it because they really wanted to, or because they thought that was the direction of the plot?

What about the cave? Perhaps the players thought the underground river was the only way?

No need to explain any of this. If the unarmored underwater encounter is exciting enough, the players are too busy and interested to ask questions.

If it's not exciting enough, the explanations for the unexciting adventure won't satisfy the players anyway.

And if they are players who always complain, then no matter what you do, it won't fix anything.

DM: Run the game. Make it fun. Don't sweat the small stuff.
Players: Play the game. Have fun. Don't sweat the small stuff.

Ettina
2015-04-11, 08:02 PM
These things should be scaled IMO: mindless undead are borderline retarded, mooks are not smart, experienced warriors are smart and will use solid tactics and dragons are hugely cunning ancient bastards who will ruin unprepared parties.

Agreed.

When I'm DMing, I base tactics off of a character's Int score. A mindless character (Int -) acts like an NPC in a video game, with a certain set of actions they do inflexibly. An Int 1 or 2 uses simple tactics reflecting how I think that sort of creature would actually act. Ints around 3-8 or so use somewhat better tactics, but will make dumb mistakes like triggering attacks of opportunity, average human Ints will act like how an actual person in that situation would act and be as optimized as their backstory calls for, and superhuman Ints will be optimized and use scarily clever strategies.

Thrathgnar
2015-04-11, 09:20 PM
I may get criticism for this since I don't play right, but I always modify the encounter as it happens. I was the players to walk away feeling like the battle was an epic battle that they barely made it through.

Talakeal
2015-04-15, 03:53 PM
So I was just talking to my DM and he had an interesting interpretation of this:

He was talking about how OP the base D&D characters are (i.e. sword and board fighter, sneak attack rogue, blaster wizard, healbot cleric) and how they are not underpowered at all. I am incredulous and he asks how, and he tells me that he had a level 3 party of them defeat a beholder once.

I can't quite believe it, but he tells me that is how the dice goes.

He tells me that he randomizes attacks, and that is DM cheating and meta-gaming to do otherwise. So, for example, seeing the big strong armored guy and using his will save effects on him and the small guy in robes holding a spell book and component pouch and focusing fort save effects on him, would be cheating, as would focusing fire and applying HP damage to those people who are already wounded. He always rolls randomly who he attacks, or if that is too dangerous, he always focuses attack on the point where they are the least effective.

I then say that even randomly targeting the party should kill them as the beholder can't really be attacked in turn, and certainly not surrounded and beat on, as they have flight with good maneuverability, and even if you catch them indoors they can simply disintegrate a 10x10 cube of ceiling above them and fly up each turn. He says the party lacked ranged weapons and thus it would be killer DMing and cheating to use such tactics.

So yeah, some people really do think that a monster with a genius intellect should not use tactics which you average player can think up on the fly or make visual assessments of a characters abilities without metagaming.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-15, 04:26 PM
So I was just talking to my DM and he had an interesting interpretation of this:

He was talking about how OP the base D&D characters are (i.e. sword and board fighter, sneak attack rogue, blaster wizard, healbot cleric) and how they are not underpowered at all. I am incredulous and he asks how, and he tells me that he had a level 3 party of them defeat a beholder once.

I can't quite believe it, but he tells me that is how the dice goes.

He tells me that he randomizes attacks, and that is DM cheating and meta-gaming to do otherwise. So, for example, seeing the big strong armored guy and using his will save effects on him and the small guy in robes holding a spell book and component pouch and focusing fort save effects on him, would be cheating, as would focusing fire and applying HP damage to those people who are already wounded. He always rolls randomly who he attacks, or if that is too dangerous, he always focuses attack on the point where they are the least effective.

I then say that even randomly targeting the party should kill them as the beholder can't really be attacked in turn, and certainly not surrounded and beat on, as they have flight with good maneuverability, and even if you catch them indoors they can simply disintegrate a 10x10 cube of ceiling above them and fly up each turn. He says the party lacked ranged weapons and thus it would be killer DMing and cheating to use such tactics.

So yeah, a lot of people really do think that a monster with a genius intellect should not use tactics which you average player can think up on the fly or make visual assessments of a characters abilities without metagaming.

What a fascinating counterpoint to the rest of this thread.

kyoryu
2015-04-15, 04:45 PM
So I was just talking to my DM and he had an interesting interpretation of this:

two thoughts:

1) This is yet more evidence that you play with REALLY WEIRD PEOPLE.

2) This is a great example of how ultimately with most things of this nature, it's not "objective truth" or "objective goodness or badness". It's what the table considers teh "right" way to play and what the table considers acceptable behavior.

Karl Aegis
2015-04-15, 04:59 PM
Why do you need a DM in a situation like that? Nobody has to make decisions for the monster, so there is no reason for there to be a DM. Just cut out the middle man and fight the random monster yourself.

LibraryOgre
2015-04-15, 06:25 PM
So I was just talking to my DM and he had an interesting interpretation of this:


... that is not an interpretation I can in any way endorse.

Mr Beer
2015-04-15, 06:28 PM
So I was just talking to my DM and he had an interesting interpretation of this:

Sure, but he's wrong.

The Evil DM
2015-04-15, 06:37 PM
So I was just talking to my DM and he had an interesting interpretation of this:


Absolutely Flat Out Wrong...

The DM is there to role play the setting and its occupants. This DM is not role playing the monsters and presenting to the players what amounts to a cheap videogame in a pen and paper format.

Braininthejar2
2015-04-15, 07:21 PM
Optimisingis also a key to keeping the world semi-realistic. Once the party hits teen levels, they are the big guys in the realm - you can't throw a boss above their level in every adventure, because there simply aren't that many people at high enough levels - instead the challenge must be maintained by making the villains available better at what they do (or using big monsters, but it can only get so far before it gets very video-gamey)

Gritmonger
2015-04-15, 07:25 PM
Absolutely Flat Out Wrong...

The DM is there to role play the setting and its occupants. This DM is not role playing the monsters and presenting to the players what amounts to a cheap videogame in a pen and paper format.

My most satisfying games are the ones where the characters hate the bad guys, I mean really hate them, but the players are having great fun roleplaying this. This doesn't happen if the villain sits there and gets beat on with little to no response. It does happen in games where a villain is able to target things the characters care about, especially if they set up a suitable distraction and maneuver the local government to side with them as well due to having more political clout.

Sith_Happens
2015-04-15, 08:34 PM
So I was just talking to my DM and he had an interesting interpretation of this:

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/91/91adb2bded3d233b79a7179b6b48a2682ab0b53f54c3225191 dd5333c41f7d84.jpg


He was talking about how OP the base D&D characters are (i.e. sword and board fighter, sneak attack rogue, blaster wizard, healbot cleric) and how they are not underpowered at all. I am incredulous and he asks how, and he tells me that he had a level 3 party of them defeat a beholder once.

http://oi39.tinypic.com/sd1guq.jpg


He tells me that he randomizes attacks, and that is DM cheating and meta-gaming to do otherwise. So, for example, seeing the big strong armored guy and using his will save effects on him and the small guy in robes holding a spell book and component pouch and focusing fort save effects on him, would be cheating, as would focusing fire and applying HP damage to those people who are already wounded. He always rolls randomly who he attacks, or if that is too dangerous, he always focuses attack on the point where they are the least effective.

But... It's right there in the Eye Rays description:


Disintegrate: ...The beholder likes to use this ray on any foe it considers a real threat.

Fear: ...Beholders like to use this ray against warriors and other powerful creatures early in a fight, to break up the opposition.

Finger of Death: ...Beholders use this ray to eliminate dangerous foes quickly.

Flesh to Stone: ...Beholders like to aim this ray at enemy spellcasters.

Sleep: ...Beholders like to use this ray against warriors and other physically powerful creatures.

Slow: ...Beholders often use this ray against the same creature targeted by their disintegrate, flesh to stone, or finger of death ray.

http://images.sodahead.com/blogs/000328093/picard_facepalm_xlarge.jpeg


He says the party lacked ranged weapons and thus it would be killer DMing and cheating to use such tactics.

...But not to send a beholder against a 3rd level party in the first place.

http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/justdance/images/0/0a/I'm_Out_Of_Here.gif/revision/latest?cb=20140823234900

Talakeal
2015-04-17, 08:30 PM
...But not to send a beholder against a 3rd level party in the first place.



Good point. I have no idea why he would send a beholder against them and then be shocked that they won. Maybe it was not supposed to be a combat encounter but the murderhobos attacked it anyway?

Berenger
2015-04-18, 05:46 AM
"Greetings, heroes. I am The Benevolent Beholder of Plot Exposition and argh-ouch-stop-it-omg-mommy..."

Talakeal
2015-04-18, 12:52 PM
"Greetings, heroes. I am The Benevolent Beholder of Plot Exposition and argh-ouch-stop-it-omg-mommy..."

More likely it was "Behold I am the terrible beholder of warnings and wielder of the almighty plot hammer. I heed a warning, if you step of these narrow railroad tracks you see before you I will be forced to put you back on them OR ELSE." Followed quickly be "Oh yeah! No one tells us what to do!"

Tvtyrant
2015-04-18, 02:49 PM
"Greetings, heroes. I am The Benevolent Beholder of Plot Exposition and argh-ouch-stop-it-omg-mommy..."

My level 1 party attacked and killed an Aboleth in a 5E game yesterday, so it is more likely than you think. They were supposed to be doing some errands for it, and instead hired an army of hirelings with crossbows and shot it to death after meeting it at the designated drop point.

Karl Aegis
2015-04-18, 03:47 PM
My level 1 party attacked and killed an Aboleth in a 5E game yesterday, so it is more likely than you think. They were supposed to be doing some errands for it, and instead hired an army of hirelings with crossbows and shot it to death after meeting it at the designated drop point.

5e aboleth self-resurrect automatically. You're pretty much screwed at this point. Level up quickly and hope for the best.

Talakeal
2015-04-18, 05:02 PM
My level 1 party attacked and killed an Aboleth in a 5E game yesterday, so it is more likely than you think. They were supposed to be doing some errands for it, and instead hired an army of hirelings with crossbows and shot it to death after meeting it at the designated drop point.

Isn't this type of situation exactly the sort of thing people criticize bounded accuracy for allowing and its defenders say won't actually come up in a real game?

Thrudd
2015-04-18, 05:32 PM
Isn't this type of situation exactly the sort of thing people criticize bounded accuracy for allowing and its defenders say won't actually come up in a real game?

All sorts of silly things can happen, in any game, if the GM doesn't make common sense rulings and present a setting that is believable. A lot of issues with various systems don't come up when common sense is applied and the limits of the system are taken into account.

That's really my answer to the optimizing issue, too. Enemies should be optimized to the extent that it makes sense for a believable setting. It is good DMing to portray the game world in a way that feels natural and sensical, enemies behave in a way that makes sense for them.

It might be poor DMing to act like every combat is a tactical war game of you vs the players, using every ability and exploit and your best strategies regardless of the type of combatants involved or the context of the fight. That might be good DMing if that is what the game is meant to be: a series of tactical challenges where the DM pits their wits and the contents of the monster manual vs the players and their ability to optimize their characters and exploit abilities.

Players and DM just need to be clear what kind of game they are playing.

mephnick
2015-04-18, 05:58 PM
Isn't this type of situation exactly the sort of thing people criticize bounded accuracy for allowing and its defenders say won't actually come up in a real game?

To be fair, an aboleth would absolutely never meet a party at a "drop point". It has slaves for that. It's not going to just show up at the corner store like "'Sup."

The immortal alien genius with a millennium of memories would probably have plans to deal with backstabbing as well.

Bounded Accuracy allows for some funny things, but you still have to play the monsters properly.

But I guess this is what the thread is about, isn't it?

Tvtyrant
2015-04-18, 06:58 PM
5e aboleth self-resurrect automatically. You're pretty much screwed at this point. Level up quickly and hope for the best.

Eh, the metaplot makes everything in the story immortal as the city resets at the end of each day. The Aboleth set this up millions of years ago, being killed doesn't bother him.

BayardSPSR
2015-04-18, 07:11 PM
Isn't this type of situation exactly the sort of thing people criticize bounded accuracy for allowing and its defenders say won't actually come up in a real game?

I remember that thread... Commoners versus dragon, right? I wonder if the attitudes to it are any different now that it's officially a thing that can happen.

Sith_Happens
2015-04-18, 08:11 PM
Back to the 3.5 Beholder for a second... Even if it stayed near the ground, let itself get surrounded, and targeted randomly-selected PCs with randomly-selected attacks, it has 26 AC, 93 HP, can fire at least three eye rays per turn (and probably all nine if it was in fact surrounded), and slightly under half of them are save-or-dies. Heck, Distentagrate and Finger of Death are deadly to most 3rd level characters even if they do save.

So how else was this DM playing it wrong, and do I even want to know?:smalleek:

Jay R
2015-04-18, 09:25 PM
He tells me that he randomizes attacks, and that is DM cheating and meta-gaming to do otherwise. So, for example, seeing the big strong armored guy and using his will save effects on him and the small guy in robes holding a spell book and component pouch and focusing fort save effects on him, would be cheating, as would focusing fire and applying HP damage to those people who are already wounded.
...
He says the party lacked ranged weapons and thus it would be killer DMing and cheating to use such tactics.

"Cheating" means violating the rules. Ask him to show you the exact rule being violated.

Talakeal
2015-04-18, 11:23 PM
"Cheating" means violating the rules. Ask him to show you the exact rule being violated.

Hell if I know what he means.

As I have said in previous threads, he basically makes up the rules on the spot and then insists they are RAW, and if you actually look up something that contradicts him he refuses to even look at it, yells at you for being a "rules lawyer", and then laughs at to his friends later about how you threw a "hissy fit"* when you couldn't accept that he was right.

But he has some VERY strange ideas about what constitutes meta-gaming and when said meta-gaming becomes cheating. For example, targeting an enemy with obvious wounds or less armor is bad metagaming.

On the other hand, everyone is required to meta-game to go along with the plot and the rest of the party, to the point where one time I was simply discussing my motivation for adventuring with the party when he butt in and said something to the effect of "You are with the party because you are a PC and PCs are required to belong to the same party. If you so much as question this again you will be asked to leave the game." I tried to explain that I was aware of my reason out of character for my reasons to be with the party, I am just trying to come up with an IC rationale to help with my RP, and he told me that it doesn't matter and I was forbidden to waste people's time by talking about it. Truly one of the most bizarre conversations I have ever had at a gaming table.


*At least, I assume this last step happens, as at least once each session he tells a story about a different former player who "threw a hissy fit" and had to be kicked out because they couldn't accept that the DM knew the rules better than them. He is a very strange and seemingly delusional individual, I don't know how I keep finding these people.

Sith_Happens
2015-04-18, 11:31 PM
On the other hand, everyone is required to meta-game to go along with the plot and the rest of the party, to the point where one time I was simply discussing my motivation for adventuring with the party when he butt in and said something to the effect of "You are with the party because you are a PC and PCs are required to belong to the same party. If you so much as question this again you will be asked to leave the game."

Protip: Ask him the question again.

Talakeal
2015-04-18, 11:50 PM
Protip: Ask him the question again.

You know, while I was typing it I just new that someone was going to suggest that :smallsmile:

Honestly it seems like a better idea each day...

YossarianLives
2015-04-19, 12:29 AM
Back to the 3.5 Beholder for a second... Even if it stayed near the ground, let itself get surrounded, and targeted randomly-selected PCs with randomly-selected attacks, it has 26 AC, 93 HP, can fire at least three eye rays per turn (and probably all nine if it was in fact surrounded), and slightly under half of them are save-or-dies. Heck, Distentagrate and Finger of Death are deadly to most 3rd level characters even if they do save.

So how else was this DM playing it wrong, and do I even want to know?:smalleek:
Mostly likely meleeing with the beholders bite attack.


Also, to Talakeal. I'm pretty sure you either live in a really bad area for good gaming or are just incredibly unlucky.

NichG
2015-04-19, 12:55 AM
Its all relative - do what the situation calls for in order for people to have fun and be entertained at the level of skill they like. Running random-action monsters against a strategically savvy player will make them bored. Running strategic genius monsters against someone who just wants to play beer and pretzels and do zany stuff is going to make them frustrated and upset. There isn't 'one correct game' that will do for everybody - different player tastes, skill levels, moods, etc all influence what the DM should do. Intelligent play on either side of the DM screen can really make the numbers misleading, but that's okay too since the point of the game is the play and not 'proving that CR works' or something like that.

Knaight
2015-04-19, 02:56 AM
Isn't this type of situation exactly the sort of thing people criticize bounded accuracy for allowing and its defenders say won't actually come up in a real game?

Not really. The points of criticism that are somewhat close to it generally don't involve the creatures in question coming in to a designated point of your choice without even looking into the surroundings first. I really can't fault a system for modeling a deadly ambush at a meeting involving tons of crossbows as, well, deadly.

Hypername
2015-04-19, 04:16 AM
Strategy applied should be dependant on the encounter. A group of trolls won't utilize modern warfare strategies and a combat-trained squad of elite warriors from the enemy lines shouldn't resort to just blindly attacking everyone.
You should be realistic with the encounters if the group wants to do so.
If the enemy uses really advanced tactics you should award extra XP to the party if they handle the situation correctly.
The most important thing is to play the encounters according to the party's desires. I'm not suggesting pandering to them, but understand their mood. If they prefer to play more casually and be the heroes go a bit lighter on them. If they ask you to make things harder do so. Discuss about that OOC when you first meet.
About the randomized behaviour of the monster that was posted. NOPE. Big nope. That makes no sense. Even animals don't act randomly when faced with threats. Much less something like a Beholder. If your GM/DM is so random just leave really, unless you can discuss it with the rest of the party.

malkarnivore
2015-04-19, 11:25 AM
On the other hand, I have often been criticized for not giving extra "XP" when a monster uses its spells to buff itself, is fighting on its own turf and is thus ideal for the habitat, or uses hit and run tactics.


This has to be the single-most stupid thing i've ever heard as a GM. Giving out extra XP because the monster actually used it's full capacity written on the sheet? Using proper tactics? Not being a loot pinata for the party's convenience? Dunno about you but in my opinion if it's not doing it's level best to live, the party should get less.

But as far as optimization, I'd say there's a time and a place for it.

And defeating an encounter and killing it aren't always the same thing. Pathfinder modules are rife with objective based XP, and if a character can bypass a monster threat by appeasing it/talking it down then they get the full XP normally. This is usually a good thing. You've defeated the encounter without slaughter. When you're in a heroic campaign (and if I'm running it, I will disallow evil alignments anyway) having to kill everything in sight isn't encouraged.

unless they're Daemons. I encourage players to end every Daemon they encounter. Because the results of not doing so have been impressed upon them as too horrific to seriously contemplate.

Sith_Happens
2015-04-19, 03:38 PM
Mostly likely meleeing with the beholders bite attack.

Which it can do in addition to firing 3-9 eye rays, not instead of.:smallconfused:

Milodiah
2015-04-19, 05:27 PM
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the Beholder picked up and used a light crossbow for the duration of the combat...there's "going easy on the players because you don't want a TPK but still set up a situation where one could should happen", and then there's this.

I would have left the table as soon as I noticed this happening, and I'll be damned if I care about the guy talking about me behind my back as if I'm somehow in the wrong. If the guy manages to construe it that way, then either he's a terrifying liar or in the company of people I'd be just as unhappy sharing a table with.