The most frustrating monsters to encounter as a PC...besides rust monsters

[Inevitability]

That's pretty pathetic for a Phylactery. I think baseline you are looking at +5 saves, +6 to casting stat, and then a bunch of other effects stacked on from the MiC.

It was a reference to the One Ring.

[Beheld]

It was a reference to the One Ring.

I realize that, but aside from the fact that the One Ring only makes Hobbits invisible because they are weak and sneaky and can only use a small amount of the power, and that the Ring doesn't operate to create the new body of Sauron like a Phylactery, my point was that the things that are done by the most powerful characters in Lord of the Rings are weaksauce compared to the minimum of what a 13th level Lich would be expected to do.

[Hunter Noventa]

It's entirely possible we might be playing them wrong, but in our games, grapple based monsters tend to suck.

The way they generally play out is they grapple/snatch/swallow one PC, apply some damage or status effects to it, while the other PCs wail on the beast with impunity. Unless the monster has a specific ability that says otherwise, they generally need to suck up a large penalty to hold onto the PC with one limb, if they want to make attacks with others. If they don't do this, they lose all (most?) offensive abilities against anyone except the grappled.

It's generally a ticking clock for the rest of the party to smash the monster before the grappled succumbs to damage or lethal status effects - but once you throw in a few power attacks, it almost always comes out in the favour of the PCs.

...at least at our table. Like I said, maybe we're doing it wrong.

In my experience grappling monsters usually come in packs or are accompanied by other creatures, that might be part of my problem with it. But the earlier post about it being a frustrating mechanic are correct, because countering it is basically all or nothing.

Thankfully our regular DM has mostly shied away from them.

[jindra34]

In my experience grappling monsters usually come in packs or are accompanied by other creatures, that might be part of my problem with it. But the earlier post about it being a frustrating mechanic are correct, because countering it is basically all or nothing.

Thankfully our regular DM has mostly shied away from them.

My prefered response to grapple monsters when I use to play 3.x was to be really LITTLE. Because the game prevented you from grappling anything more than a certain number of sizes smaller.

[Beheld]

My prefered response to grapple monsters when I use to play 3.x was to be really LITTLE. Because the game prevented you from grappling anything more than a certain number of sizes smaller.

You can only bull rush an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.

While I can see how you would make that mistake, I hope you can see, after having it explained, how you were wrong. "one size category" only applies to the larger part, not the entire list. This is really clear, because if you tried to apply it to the second part of the list "one size category the same size" is word salad, and obviously saying a qualification that is in the first entry of the list applies to the first and third but not second does not make grammatical sense.

[ExLibrisMortis]

That's pretty pathetic for a Phylactery. I think baseline you are looking at +5 saves, +6 to casting stat, and then a bunch of other effects stacked on from the MiC.

I just want to point out that this is is pretty cheesy - phylacteries are by RAW made from nonmagical items and can't have additional effects built into them. While you can craft an item that's been temporarily disabled (=nonmagical) into a phylactery, I wouldn't count on that being accepted, because at some point, the phylactery will be illegal (when the dispel wears off).

At that level of cheese, you're not relying on magic items to provide resistance bonuses or ability score bonuses, you're stacking buff spells on top of invisible buff spells on top of even more buff spells, because items are costlier than free spell slots.

[Beheld]

I just want to point out that this is is pretty cheesy - phylacteries are by RAW made from nonmagical items and can't have additional effects built into them. While you can craft an item that's been temporarily disabled (=nonmagical) into a phylactery, I wouldn't count on that being accepted, because at some point, the phylactery will be illegal (when the dispel wears off).

At that level of cheese, you're not relying on magic items to provide resistance bonuses or ability score bonuses, you're stacking buff spells on top of invisible buff spells on top of even more buff spells, because items are costlier than free spell slots.

???????????

I see no rules anywhere that say you can't enchant your phylactery. It's a magic item, and you can add magic effects to other items.

2) The magic item isn't about being a defense for your character. It's about convincing anyone who kills you not to destroy it. If you are killed, but the person who kills you believes you have a bunch of phylacteries stored all around the world, and they pick up a magic item that is worth your entire WBL, they are a lot less likely to break it apart and destroy it, since you know, wouldn't it be nice to have huge bonuses to all your stats and some cool magical effects instead?

[Telok]

I once had a lich's thingy be it's spellbook. Extra large, adamantine covers, and custom spells boosted the value (before enchantment) to over 50k gold pieces. Normally it would have worked fine but the guy playing the party caster in that game had serious ADD and never understood the concept of custom spells or non-monetary value. Since it wasn't a magic item he could immedately use or actual gold he thought it was trash. He gave it to a 5th level npc cleric in a village they passed through on thier way to the big magic university.

They never did pass that way again so I didn't figure out what happened. But there was an old dungeon nearby if I needed it. Or there was the fact that even necromancer liches can still cast illusions.

I still think that the sport/war difference to approaching combat makes a big difference in what's a frustrating encounter. The sport approach tends to start combats at short ranges in an arena like setting with the players not knowing what they'll encounter next. Take 'that dang crab' for instance, a cr... 3? encounter on a beach. In a 'combat as sport' the party walks along a beach, makes spot checks, and the encounter begins with the crab charging out of the surf and grabbing someone. The party then fights the crab in melee with sword and spell which is a TPK. In 'combat as war' the party is mounted because walking everywhere is slow and tiring, so they also have pack animals and/or remounts. The crab has been living here long enough to grow to it's current size so either the local villagers, nearby fishermen, or the sailors that trade along the coast know about it and told the party when they asked about local hazards. Even if the area is totally uninhabited the beach is still littered with the bones and shells of the crab's previous meals. So the party starts off knowing that this is the beach of death and either goes around or sends out an expendable animal to 'scout' for danger. When combat does start it starts beyond charge range, with the party mounted and armed with missile weapons which reduces the fight to "out-think the Int -- huge vermin".

That said there are some critters that are still super annoying even for prepared, combat as war parties. Suprisingly, illithid. At the appropriate CR their mind blast DC is threatening, their spell resistance is really annoying, and if you don't land Dimensional Anchor on the first try they Plane Shift out as a standard action as soon as thier side isn't winning the fight.

[Beheld]

In 'combat as war' the party is mounted because walking everywhere is slow and tiring, so they also have pack animals and/or remounts. The crab has been living here long enough to grow to it's current size so either the local villagers, nearby fishermen, or the sailors that trade along the coast know about it and told the party when they asked about local hazards. Even if the area is totally uninhabited the beach is still littered with the bones and shells of the crab's previous meals. So the party starts off knowing that this is the beach of death and either goes around or sends out an expendable animal to 'scout' for danger. When combat does start it starts beyond charge range, with the party mounted and armed with missile weapons which reduces the fight to "out-think the Int -- huge vermin".

That said there are some critters that are still super annoying even for prepared, combat as war parties. Suprisingly, illithid. At the appropriate CR their mind blast DC is threatening, their spell resistance is really annoying, and if you don't land Dimensional Anchor on the first try they Plane Shift out as a standard action as soon as thier side isn't winning the fight.

I've never read such a compelling demonstration of how everyone who ever says "combat as sport/combat as war" is really just talking about how they think it is the DM's job to go super easy on them and cheat in their favor so they don't lose.

Nothing you listed there is even remotely related to an ability a character actually has, and comes down to "There can't possibly be an enemy based on surprise, the DM has to tell us in advance what we might face!"

[ExLibrisMortis]

???????????

I see no rules anywhere that say you can't enchant your phylactery. It's a magic item, and you can add magic effects to other items.

2) The magic item isn't about being a defense for your character. It's about convincing anyone who kills you not to destroy it. If you are killed, but the person who kills you believes you have a bunch of phylacteries stored all around the world, and they pick up a magic item that is worth your entire WBL, they are a lot less likely to break it apart and destroy it, since you know, wouldn't it be nice to have huge bonuses to all your stats and some cool magical effects instead?

Libris Mortis, page 151, section on Liches, sixth paragraph, second sentence: "A phylactery cannot be part of another magic item, nor may additional magical properties be built into it". You can't add magic item properties to a phylactery, period.

I agree with your second argument in principle, though I'll note it's dangerous if your enemies include an artificer with Retain Essence .

[Beheld]

Libris Mortis, page 151, section on Liches, sixth paragraph, second sentence: "A phylactery cannot be part of another magic item, nor may additional magical properties be built into it". You can't add magic item properties to a phylactery, period.

Yeah I'm just going to ignore the weird nonsense rules from Libris Mortis about Liches, just like I do all the other weird nonsense rules that try to replace all the Core rules. When I want to know how a Lich Works, I open the MM that has Liches in it.

[Draconium]

On topic... The most annoying monsters in the games I play vary widely, bit let's go with one that hasn't been mentioned yet - another PC. You know, when another character makes a stupid decision, or behaves in an aggravating way? Yeah, that gets extremely frustrating. Luckily, it's not too common, at least for me. And I'm not exactly innocent of being the frustrating one, either...

[ExLibrisMortis]

Yeah I'm just going to ignore the weird nonsense rules from Libris Mortis about Liches, just like I do all the other weird nonsense rules that try to replace all the Core rules. When I want to know how a Lich Works, I open the MM that has Liches in it.

If you're going to ignore the rules at will, why even bother posting? At least mention that you're playing core-only...

[Beheld]

If you're going to ignore the rules at will, why even bother posting? At least mention that you're playing core-only...

I'm not ignoring the rules at will, I'm ignoring nonsense rules that contradict the monster entry posted some other place. If somewhere in Unapproachable East it says that Aboleths are really land bound animals instead of sea bound aberrations, that doesn't change anything, because if people want to use an Aboleth, they are going to open up the MM and look at the aboleth.

[Telok]

I've never read such a compelling demonstration of how everyone who ever says "combat as sport/combat as war" is really just talking about how they think it is the DM's job to go super easy on them and cheat in their favor so they don't lose.

I fail to understand you.

Nothing you listed there is even remotely related to an ability a character actually has

"Talk to NPC" isn't an ability that characters have?

[Beheld]

"Talk to NPC" isn't an ability that characters have?

"Use Magic Powers to Force All Monsters to Reveal Themselves to Locals, Even When They Wouldn't" isn't an ability characters have.

Look I get it, you will totally be stomped on if your DM doesn't give you a full list of every single encounter your party will ever face in advance, so your DM does it, that doesn't mean that everyone else is playing the game wrong and you are the one true light in the darkness.

EDIT: Which leads directly into the other issues, like how do you know a monsters entire statblock from a random villager's half remembered description of something he saw a part of once a month ago.

I mean, I have personally written houserules that revamp the knowledge system and rules for figuring out what some random commoner is describing when he doesn't have the knowledge rules, but I have no doubt, as one of the many pretentious "I play Combat as War so I'm better than you" jerks rolling around, you just assume that you get to find all this stuff out from talking to someone who also can't make the knowledge check and would have died if he was ever within 80ft of one. After all, we all know the old adage about how one blind guy touches an elephants left back leg, and yells out "Yep, it's definitely an elephant!" to the other blind guy 100ft away.

[TheCrowing1432]

Drow with clever use of Darkness and their Sleep Poison can be terrifying.

[PraxisVetli]

"Use Magic Powers to Force All Monsters to Reveal Themselves to Locals, Even When They Wouldn't" isn't an ability characters have.

Look I get it, you will totally be stomped on if your DM doesn't give you a full list of every single encounter your party will ever face in advance, so your DM does it, that doesn't mean that everyone else is playing the game wrong and you are the one true light in the darkness.

EDIT: Which leads directly into the other issues, like how do you know a monsters entire statblock from a random villager's half remembered description of something he saw a part of once a month ago.

I mean, I have personally written houserules that revamp the knowledge system and rules for figuring out what some random commoner is describing when he doesn't have the knowledge rules, but I have no doubt, as one of the many pretentious "I play Combat as War so I'm better than you" jerks rolling around, you just assume that you get to find all this stuff out from talking to someone who also can't make the knowledge check and would have died if he was ever within 80ft of one. After all, we all know the old adage about how one blind guy touches an elephants left back leg, and yells out "Yep, it's definitely an elephant!" to the other blind guy 100ft away.

First, I disagree. It's perfectly logical to ask npc's if there are particular hazards that need to be watched for. Something he saw part of once a month ago could still be gigantic, shiny, too many legs, and a giant claw that cut his ox in half before disappearing into the surf. Still plenty of information to encourage scouting and planning with bows. Do you brazenly waltz into dungeons you know are populated with ox-swallowing monsters with research or scouting?

Second, I don't actually know what you're talking about with blind men and elephants.

[Beheld]

First, I disagree. It's perfectly logical to ask npc's if there are particular hazards that need to be watched for. Something he saw part of once a month ago could still be gigantic, shiny, too many legs, and a giant claw that cut his ox in half before disappearing into the surf. Still plenty of information to encourage scouting and planning with bows. Do you brazenly waltz into dungeons you know are populated with ox-swallowing monsters with research or scouting?

Second, I don't actually know what you're talking about with blind men and elephants.

Sometimes it makes sense to ask NPCs sometimes it doesn't. Most of the time when you do, you will get little to zero useful information. Even when you do get useful information, it won't be on every single enemy that exists that you will ever run into. I'm not sure why a coastal village has oxes walking along the beach at all, but honestly, no, nothing about "a monster jumped out of the ocean and ate my ox" tells you that it's a good idea to kite with Mongol Arching, since that requires the creature to be an idiot Vermin (which it is, but "it ate my ox" sure ain't going to tell you that) so that you know it won't just walk back into the water where it lives and can ignore your arrows.

All of this ignores that the crab is a CR 3 monster, so it's one of the four monsters your party is going to run into today, do the villagers also tell you all about the other three that they also don't know about? Do the villagers have anything to say when they haven't conveniently been oxen walking and then were conveniently allowed to escape after it killed their oxen? Like if say, this ocean living creature just happened to show up within the last few days, instead of months ago to give them time to have a convenient run in?

Look, don't get me wrong, I really don't care that they go around asking NPCs about threats. I get mad that they: 1) expect the NPCs to have +1000000 to all knowledge checks, 2) Expect the NPCs to have encountered every enemy they will ever face and lived to tell the tail, 3) have their PCs act as if they all have +10000 knowledge checks, 4) Then condescend to everyone else by telling them how they play D&D like loser casuals who just don't get it, because they would totally have advance knowledge of every fight and take 573 days to kill a Basilisk with their leet tactics of war!, because only filthy casuals just put a blindfold on the Barbarian and point him at the barrow entrance like a sport!

EDIT: Second, there's an old adage about how a bunch of blind people touch an elephant and all think it is a different creature. The point here being that apparently limited information being passed on from random commoners who can't identify the monster, to PCs who can't identify the monster, is somehow enough to identify the monster. IE: Two people who have no idea what they are doing somehow combine to perfect monster knowledge. The reference to the old adage is to emphasize how silly that is.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm not ignoring the rules at will, I'm ignoring nonsense rules that contradict the monster entry posted some other place.

The Libris Mortis rules do not contradict the Monster Manual. Even if they did, recent publications can and do override older ones. That's how the publication structure is organized. You are ignoring the rules, apparently because they don't suit your argument.

Spoiler: Counter-arguments

Show

Even if we use MM rules only, which we're not, you can't add effects to a phylactery. Creating a phylactery requires 120 000 gold, for a market price of 240 000 gold. By the item creation rules, a non-epic item can cost up to 200 000 gp. Phylacteries have an implicit exception, but any additional effects do not. As such, you can't add any effects without also requiring the Craft Epic Wondrous Item feat.

A further reason you couldn't add further enhancements to a phylactery using MIC rules, is that those rules don't work on slotless items, such as phylacteries. Incidentally, the MIC rules on combining magic items 'contradict', or rather, replace the DMG rules, for certain items at least. By your reasoning, we can't use them.

In short: you are selectively 'allowing' rules into the argument, and that's annoying. The baseline is that all rules written are RAW. While nobody is required to know all books by heart, you can at least recognize the RAW when someone provides a direct quote. Doing so doesn't stop us from talking about different possible rulesets and readings. As I wrote, I think it's a good idea to disguise your phylactery as something useful. In fact, that is one of the trends suggested in this thread, including MaxiDuRarity's suggestion of using a device from Ravenloft to get around the 'no further magic' restriction, any my own of using voidstone (nonmagical DC 25 save versus disintegrate).

[Beheld]

You are ignoring the rules, apparently because they don't suit your argument.

What argument? I made a joke, I don't care at all whether the thing that only ECL 16 level characters willing to blow their entire WBL for a Phylactery item can or can't work. The fact that I'm not going to read a completely different book in order to run a monster is just the basic fact of the game for 99.9999% of GMs.

In short: you are selectively 'allowing' rules into the argument, and that's annoying.

No, I'm "selectively" using the Lich entry to run liches, just like "selectively" use the Glabrezu entry to run Glabrezu and don't go hunting around for the table of random not deaths and then have all my Glabrezu's be immortal, because Fiendish Codex 1 said that Demons never die, and when you kill a Glabrezu, it breaks into a million fine sized Glabrezus that all run off in different directions until they eventually get to the Abyss and reform into that exact same Glabrezu and with all the same memories and thoughts and plans.

That's the point. Monster entries are where you fine the rules for the monsters in question, not offhand sentences in the middle of 36 pages of prose.

[Marlowe]

I've never read such a compelling demonstration of how everyone who ever says "combat as sport/combat as war" is really just talking about how they think it is the DM's job to go super easy on them and cheat in their favor so they don't lose.

Nothing you listed there is even remotely related to an ability a character actually has, and comes down to "There can't possibly be an enemy based on surprise, the DM has to tell us in advance what we might face!"

Funny. I always thought the DMs job was to produce a compelling narrative with the players as the protagonists. Yes, including cheating in their favour so they don't lose if losing means end of game, annoyed players who don't want to play with you anymore, arguments with girlfriend who you dragooned into playing the Barbarian, et al.

If the players don't want to play with you, you don't have a game. And you won't have a game with those people again, most likely.

Coming from a historical wargaming background rather than an RPG one, I have to say; you seem to have the wrong attitude. D&D is not a competitive game, it is a social one.

When I play a historical wargame, my job is to rush my opposite without mercy for the glory of...what was it last? Oh yes, the Wendisch people! When I play D&D as a PC, my job is to be a worthy team member. And when I play as a DM, my job is to put on a show where the PCs are the stars.

There is no point. None. In killing your PCs when DMing. The DM has infinite resources. We all know this. You are not proving anything by not letting your PCs win. Except that you're a poor sport.

[Beheld]

Funny. I always thought the DMs job was to produce a compelling narrative with the players as the protagonists. Yes, including cheating in their favour so they don't lose if losing means end of game, annoyed players who don't want to play with you anymore, arguments with girlfriend who you dragooned into playing the Barbarian, et al.

If the players don't want to play with you, you don't have a game. And you won't have a game with those people again, most likely.

Coming from a historical wargaming background rather than an RPG one, I have to say; you seem to have the wrong attitude. D&D is not a competitive game, it is a social one.

When I play a historical wargame, my job is to rush my opposite without mercy for the glory of...what was it last? Oh yes, the Wendisch people! When I play D&D as a PC, my job is to be a worthy team member. And when I play as a DM, my job is to put on a show where the PCs are the stars.

There is no point. None. In killing your PCs when DMing. The DM has infinite resources. We all know this. You are not proving anything by not letting your PCs win. Except that you're a poor sport.

You seemed to have missed the point. Combat as War is a term invented by pretentious ***** who like to criticize everyone who they don't like for any reason as "Combat as Sport" casuals who are playing on easy mode. So the fact that they are also "casuals who are playing on easy mode" is an ironic turnabout.

I know the DM is always going to present challenges the PCs can beat, it's just that I'd like for that to be based on the DM presenting challenges that PCs can beat, and then the PCs either beat them or not based on using their actual abilities and stuff, including, (and this is where the War/sport thing gets hilarious) actual ability to gather information, and respond to information by Both Sides! of the PCs and the Monsters. Whereas every single person who posts about "Combat as Sport (Booooo Hissssssss) vs Combat as War (Yaaaaa, this one is the right one)" is really very certain that they should be able to just get all the information for the master plan (even if their PC has no way to get that information, or it requires thousands of fortuitous coincidences) while the enemies just aren't allow to gather information and use that information intelligently.

But we are definitely told all the time that "Combat as War is the real true hard mode D&D that is way better than those filthy casuals! But really all styles are acceptable (WINK WINK!)" and so it's funny to see a perfect example of how their thinly disguised criticism of everyone else is actually more accurately applied to them.

[Qc Storm]

Nimblewrights have always kicked ass when they showed up. Being constructs, they have the typical high AC, immunities to nearly everything, and insane SR.

To make things worse, they dual wield rapiers that crit on a 12, which then forces a reflex save or fall prone. Their feats complement their annoying fighting style very well and they have a couple of spells that synergize well with what they do (haste, cat's grace).

Unsurprisingly, they originate from the monster manual 2.

[The Viscount]

In the update they changed it to a slightly better 15-20 crit range, but it's still quite frustrating to fight.

[ATalsen]

I myself am strongly in the Combat as Sport camp, but I do deal with players who seem to have a Combat as War leaning.

Combat as War is a term invented by pretentious ***** who like to criticize everyone who they don't like for any reason as "Combat as Sport" casuals who are playing on easy mode.

Maybe I’ve never seen whatever original your talking aobut, but what I have seen has painted a good picture for me of two opposing styles of play. There is some middle ground to be had, but I note that some of my own conflicts with other players and some of my frustrations with certain games come for the CaW/CaS conflict.

I know the DM is always going to present challenges the PCs can beat, it's just that I'd like for that to be based on the DM presenting challenges that PCs can beat, and then the PCs either beat them or not based on using their actual abilities and stuff, including, (and this is where the War/sport thing gets hilarious) actual ability to gather information, and respond to information by Both Sides! of the PCs and the Monsters.

This part I can and do get behind – I want to use my character sheet to overcome the obstacles. If I build a scout I want to SCOUT and find stuff out (but I better make a damn GOOD scout and add additional resources as I gain levels to counter increasing detection abilities; but that’s part and parcel to being a scout). If I build a meleeist I am going to want to fight toe-to-toe with opponents because that’s what my PC is good at, and that’s what I decided I’d have fun playing.

Whereas every single person who posts about "Combat as Sport (Booooo Hissssssss) vs Combat as War (Yaaaaa, this one is the right one)" is really very certain that they should be able to just get all the information for the master plan (even if their PC has no way to get that information, or it requires thousands of fortuitous coincidences) while the enemies just aren't allow to gather information and use that information intelligently.

And here is where you lose me.

I’m pretty sure that Combat as War people are NOT trying to play on ‘easy mode’ or whatever, I just think they get their fun by outsmarting the DM and/or their opponents. Possibly with an eye to being the most efficient in resource management that they can.


I think Combat as War is a legitimate play style, I just don’t want to be part of a (mostly) Combat as War game.


I don’t mind it when a scout determines what opposition the PCs will face, and thus allows the PCs to come up with a solid plan of engagement tailored perfectly to the abilities the PCs can bring to the fight right now.

I do mind when the plan involves backtracking, hitting town for supplies, or waiting a whole day for the casters to revise their spell selections. If casters want to leave spell slots open to fill in some better choices with a few minutes of down time, that’s awesome, but not a whole day to revise everything.

Combat as War seems to include 2 things that I don’t like:

1. PCs know what they are going to be facing so they buy gobs of disposables that will negate or trivialize the issues they will face, or otherwise gather resources or support outside of the PCs’ own abilities: resources their PCs do not normally possess.
2. The PCs come up with ‘logical’ plans to outmaneuver their opponents that do not utilize the rules of the game

(Please forgive me if you do like Combat as War and your play style does not include the above; this is simply my own experience).

Why do I dislike issue #1:
I want to play a particular PC and use that PC’s mechanics to overcome the obstacles presented by the DM. I want my selections of character abilities and class choices to make a difference in how I can overcome those obstacles. If I can gather resources that are NOT part of my character build, and use them to overcome the obstacles, then my character build is meaningless, and it doesn’t matter if I’m playing a Wizard or Fighter.

If the resources that overcomes the obstacle is one that is normally part of the PC, then I don’t have any issue with it, as that PC had to make an opportunity cost based decision on what to buy ahead of time. If a fighter always has a few Fly potions around because they want to be able to engage in melee against flying opponents, then that’s part of their normal resources, and they had to make a choice (opportunity cost) not to pick up some other resource in order to get those potions.

If instead, they can choose not to pick up any resources ahead of time, and retain the cash until they know exactly what they will face, and which resources they need to overcome it, it still costs the cash, but it no longer has the associated opportunity cost of not being able to pick some other item that may also have been useful.

The opportunity cost is more important to me than the cash cost, as cash tends to flow into campaigns pretty rapidly in my experience. If there’s so much cash in the game that there IS no opportunity cost and every character can simply have every needed item, that too is an issue, but a separate one.


Why I dislike issue #2:
If the PCs are making up things outside the rules, again, the choices I’ve made in building by PC are meaningless. [Referring to This forum post]: A fighter can just as easily dump a bucket of mud on the monk as a wizard can, and if mud solves the problem of ‘bees’ then no PC’s abilities were actually needed to overcome the obstacle.

Now, if a scout came back with reports of two golems, and the wizard – knowing they won’t be able to do much about them with direct spells – suggests using Stone Shape to create a pit, and then an illusion to cover the pit, and have the rogue (good Balance skill to walk along edge of pit) lure the mindless golems to fall into the pit, that’s a plan that uses existing rules and character abilities (and resources) to foil an encounter, instead of any requirement to ad hoc by the DM.

I want to use the mechanics to the game, and of my PC to engage with the game; if something has no mechanics associated with it, then it likely has no mechanical cost to perform. Effectively I feel that attempting to circumvent costs and the rules of the game is a form of cheating and I do not enjoy it.

Nothing you listed there is even remotely related to an ability a character actually has,

"Talk to NPC" isn't an ability that characters have?

My objection is more along the lines of Every PC has the ability to Talk to an NPC, so it’s not a build-choice related ability, and thus *I* want it to have limited impact on how difficult the combats are. Not a zero impact, mind you (NPCs often point you to plotlines and potential complications and that’s a good thing), but I do want my PC’s selected mechanical abilities to count a whole lot more than casual conversation with an NPC does.

I do note that its very much personnel preference on my part!

[Beheld]

Maybe I’ve never seen whatever original your talking aobut, but what I have seen has painted a good picture for me of two opposing styles of play. There is some middle ground to be had, but I note that some of my own conflicts with other players and some of my frustrations with certain games come for the CaW/CaS conflict.

...

I think Combat as War is a legitimate play style, I just don’t want to be part of a (mostly) Combat as War game.


I don’t mind it when a scout determines what opposition the PCs will face, and thus allows the PCs to come up with a solid plan of engagement tailored perfectly to the abilities the PCs can bring to the fight right now.

I do mind when the plan involves backtracking, hitting town for supplies, or waiting a whole day for the casters to revise their spell selections. If casters want to leave spell slots open to fill in some better choices with a few minutes of down time, that’s awesome, but not a whole day to revise everything.

It just really confuses me how you can say things like this and not realize the inherent false dichotomy of the SportvsWar nonsense. I mean their are other problems too that make it even more obviously a false dichotomy, but you should have right here enough to realize that.

And here is where you lose me.

I’m pretty sure that Combat as War people are NOT trying to play on ‘easy mode’ or whatever, I just think they get their fun by outsmarting the DM and/or their opponents. Possibly with an eye to being the most efficient in resource management that they can.

No one ever thinks they are playing on easy mode. All the Fighter lovers just love to talk about how fighters are good enough to keep up with CR (as long as you ban 3/4ths of the monster manual and/or play all the enemies like crippled idiots) and all the combat as war types love to talk about how their genius plans allow them to beat everything (without realizing that all their plans are terrible and require the DM to give them information they have no way to get, and then rely on fortuitous coincidence, and then require all enemies to be idiots, and then require the world to not respond to them in any way and remain frozen forever so that they never have to face more than once enemy per week so they can fit in all their elaborate bull**** plans into each encounter.)

It's just particularly funny to me, because every single person who ever said "Combat as War vs Combat as Sport" is always bringing it up to humble brag about how much better they are then plebs who play as Sport. Like in this thread, or every other thread ever where someone said it.

[ATalsen]

It just really confuses me how you can say things like this and not realize the inherent false dichotomy of the SportvsWar nonsense. I mean their are other problems too that make it even more obviously a false dichotomy, but you should have right here enough to realize that.

I’m not sure where you are coming from with talking about it as a false dichotomy.
Maybe your saying that there’s too much overlap between the categories to make them distinct?

I certainly admit there’s overlap in the middle where you can scout/scry or gather info according to the rules and use some of that (probably imperfect) info to prepare, somewhat, for the upcoming encounter(s).

But CaS/CaW really are extremes on a scale, and since I’m at one extreme end (kick in the door and go, go, go!), I find it useful as a talking tool to describe myself and other player’s styles and how they do or do not mesh, or how they do or do not meet the goals I have in playing a game.

If not CaS/CaW, then what other description of ‘prepare heavily in order trivialize an encounter’ vs ‘enter each encounter with only what you have on hand at the time and try to beat it’ would you suggest. Or are those even valid summaries of CaS/CaW to you?

[Beheld]

I’m not sure where you are coming from with talking about it as a false dichotomy.
Maybe your saying that there’s too much overlap between the categories to make them distinct?

I certainly admit there’s overlap in the middle where you can scout/scry or gather info according to the rules and use some of that (probably imperfect) info to prepare, somewhat, for the upcoming encounter(s).

But CaS/CaW really are extremes on a scale, and since I’m at one extreme end (kick in the door and go, go, go!), I find it useful as a talking tool to describe myself and other player’s styles and how they do or do not mesh, or how they do or do not meet the goals I have in playing a game.

If not CaS/CaW, then what other description of ‘prepare heavily in order trivialize an encounter’ vs ‘enter each encounter with only what you have on hand at the time and try to beat it’ would you suggest. Or are those even valid summaries of CaS/CaW to you?

The point is that it is basically this: "Best Numbers as Four vs Best Numbers as Five. I personally think 5 is the best number. But I know other people think that other numbers like four are the best number. I'm more of a Five than a Four Person.

What your favorite number is 12? You Fourist!"

Sure it is certainly true that many hated Combat as Sportists engage in varying degrees of preplanning. But the main point is that people who actually do prefer their games to be more versimilitude because Enemies can also ****ing make plans, are somehow classified as filthy Combat as Sportists, which renders the entire distinction pointless and misleading. I agree that Combat as War people want their encounters trivialized by some dumb plan they made up in advance of the encounter, but it does not follow that all people who don't want that are the same type of person, that's pretty much literally a textbook false dichotomy.

[ATalsen]

The point is that it is basically this: "Best Numbers as Four vs Best Numbers as Five. I personally think 5 is the best number. But I know other people think that other numbers like four are the best number. I'm more of a Five than a Four Person.

To put it into your numbers parlance, I can acknowledge that “four” is indeed the “best” number for me. And when I meet people who are “five is best”, then I can initiate a dialog to figure out if we can come to an agreement to use “4.5” in our game, or if that won’t work. If I find out instead they are somewhere around 12, then I'm pretty sure that we won't be happy gaming together, regardless.

What I don’t do is assume that “five is BAD” and refuse to discuss it.

To do that kind of thing I have to have some behavior or goal examples to use in the conversation, and CaW/CaS has provided that sort of tool for me.



Thanks to everyone who has been patient with this off topic conversation!