Stealth Buffing

[Koumei]

Being lied to by the DM isn't fun. Sure, you might get some satisfaction when the enemy dramatically misses with what should have been the killing blow and then blows his save to a hail mary Save or Die off a scroll with a bullshit save DC - but when you eventually find out that those rolls behind the screen were fudged and were not real, it robs the accomplishment of all meaning and turns the taste of victory to the taste of ash.

The moral of the story here though is surely "Don't tell them". If they never find out, you're golden.

"Lies are like children - a lot of work to maintain, but the future of humanity depends on them"

[Lago PARANOIA]

And their reaction to being shown what things look like when they are actually good enough to go without the kid gloves, they are offended. Because they are small minded little shits. They see enemies going through Fire Giants and Ropers and tag teams of Mind Flayers and they think that because they can't do this (but they are undeservedly certain that their character must be on target) that the other player must be cheating.

What they want is an actual contradiction. They want to open up the back end and run through everything on real hard mode with no punches pulled and be proved right. So that they can smugly lord it over the "weaklings" like Frank and K who think they need to cheat to achieve success. But the problem is... they are not right. They are wrong. If you give them the honest no holds barred gauntlet that they keen for, they will fail.

What can I tell you, Frank? The truth is agonizing and lies are corrosive, but doublethink is a warm puppy nuzzling against your palm.

The point is that I don't really blame virgileso for deciding to cater to his players' doublethink to the point of not even challenging it in the first place. It is the basis of all interactions with strangers. You know how human beings get.


By the way, all of you Denners who are saying that Frank's in the wrong and that virgileso should just give the players what they want... I don't disagree with you guys, but I would like to say that this is pretty much in the same category as ignoring someone whinge on about death panels or homeopathy without correcting them because you don't want to start a fight or alienate an acquaintance.

I have sympathy for this course of action, but keep in mind it is us who are the deceptive flattering enablers. It is we who are the monsters.

[virgil]

I wish I thought it through a bit before mentioning the anti-Frank sentiment in at least one of my players (the rest never mentioned him). Sorry about that.

This last session has been a boring crawl. Half a dozen CR 4s (rogue 2 dark creepers) in one room, another half dozen in the next, two rooms with an incorporeal shadow-blending rat swarm that does 1d4 strength damage, another room with four human rogues (level 4). The last session wasn't all that fun either, with just creepers and rogues.

The mobs are too puny to put much of a dent in their healing supplies, the hallways are narrow so it takes a round for the party to even squeeze in enough to join the fight, & none of them can go down in less than two or three hits (44hp each). So fights end up with the party taking a sum total of ~30 damage spread out while taking six rounds and half an hour. It's just a foot-dragging slog where the only threat they pose is boredom.

I told them I'm going to remove the mook-laden fights from the rest of the dungeon and replace them with half as many fights using individually larger mobs (ex. 3 CR 7s instead of two more creeper rooms).

[TheFlatline]

Lava Effects

Lava or magma deals 2d6 points of damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion (such as when a character falls into the crater of an active volcano), which deals 20d6 points of damage per round.

Damage from magma continues for 1d3 rounds after exposure ceases, but this additional damage is only half of that dealt during actual contact (that is, 1d6 or 10d6 points per round).

An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma. However, a creature immune to fire might still drown if completely immersed in lava.

Weird rule, but whatever.

That's one of the stupidest fucking rules I've ever read.

So being immersed up to your neck in MOLTEN ROCK doesn't do shit to you if you have fire resistance 1, but if someone holds a burning torch to you it will probably injure you (isn't that like 1D4 damage? Even 1D2 damage would be enough to burn through FR 1 50% of the time)

That is one of *the* most counter-intuitive rules I've ever read in D&D, and I've read some whoppers.

[K]

I wish I thought it through a bit before mentioning the anti-Frank sentiment in at least one of my players (the rest never mentioned him). Sorry about that.

This last session has been a boring crawl. Half a dozen CR 4s (rogue 2 dark creepers) in one room, another half dozen in the next, two rooms with an incorporeal shadow-blending rat swarm that does 1d4 strength damage, another room with four human rogues (level 4). The last session wasn't all that fun either, with just creepers and rogues.

The mobs are too puny to put much of a dent in their healing supplies, the hallways are narrow so it takes a round for the party to even squeeze in enough to join the fight, & none of them can go down in less than two or three hits (44hp each). So fights end up with the party taking a sum total of ~30 damage spread out while taking six rounds and half an hour. It's just a foot-dragging slog where the only threat they pose is boredom.

I told them I'm going to remove the mook-laden fights from the rest of the dungeon and replace them with half as many fights using individually larger mobs (ex. 3 CR 7s instead of two more creeper rooms).

Sounds like a seriously powered down adventure. I mean, Rogues and rogue-type mobs like dark creepers need some room to do their thing and it sounds like the map is an anti-rogue map.

Widening the battle rooms and reducing the mook's numbers while raising their individual CRs might make for more satisfying battles.

[TheFlatline]

Here's a thought: play the fucking game so that everyone is having fun. Period, full stop, exclamation points, eleventy-one, and so on.

See, while I'm liable to agree with you on first blush, the fact of the matter is that as a DM, you put a metric fuckton more work into the game than probably the entire PC party combined. It's your job to create and run everything.

If the idea of the DM as supreme overlord of the universe who giveth and taketh life (but mostly taketh) is Gygaxian and bullshit, then this idea that the DM is the slave of the players' whim/enjoyment is just as bullshit and we need a term for it too.

If I have to create the gameworld, create the plot, prep before the game, keep track of dozens of NPCs/monsters, keep track of all the combat, be the ultimate reference/arbitrator to the rules, and pace the game so it remains interesting, and *then* I have to sit there and hand-tailor your character so that he isn't a suckfest (and only use resources that the player approves of... I mean WTF?), or even worse go back and re-write the game to coddle the suck-tastic PC (and still try to figure out how to make the game seem fun and challenging), then I might as well not run a fucking game, I should go write a story at that point. It'd be less work and probably less stressful.

My solution is to let the players do whatever the fuck they want within the rules established at character creation. It's not my job to make sure the PCs are up to snuff. If your story calls for custom-tailored challenges, then go ahead and stick it to them. Otherwise, create your challenges not with your PCs in mind, but with what makes sense and is appropriate to the situation. Let the PCs sink or swim on their own adaptability.

And I'd tell this monk player that if he's not open to all constructive advice because some of it comes from someone he doesn't like, then he's on his own optimizing his character.

[TheWorid]

Lava Effects

Lava or magma deals 2d6 points of damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion (such as when a character falls into the crater of an active volcano), which deals 20d6 points of damage per round.

Damage from magma continues for 1d3 rounds after exposure ceases, but this additional damage is only half of that dealt during actual contact (that is, 1d6 or 10d6 points per round).

An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma. However, a creature immune to fire might still drown if completely immersed in lava.

Weird rule, but whatever.

That looks like a typo, and was likely meant to read "An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity or resistance (respectively) to lava or magma. Especially given that the next line talks about a creature immune to fire, but not a resistant one. As written, though, yeah, that's retarded.

[Archmage]

That looks like a typo, and was likely meant to read "An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity or resistance (respectively) to lava or magma.

At first I thought this might be intentional--maybe there were some denizens of the plane of fire, for example, that were only resistant, not immune. But, on cursory review, this doesn't seem to be the case. And the effect of a fire-dominant plane (3d10 fire damage/round) is independent of lava anyway, so that wouldn't matter.

Either way, I'd never noticed that before--and it is extremely weird. I'm going to have to create a fire elf wizard who likes soaking in lava baths now.

[Wyzzard]

Lava Effects [snip]

Weird rule, but whatever.

As I recall, the intent is that any amount of energy resistance makes you immune to mundane damage of that sort.
So Resist Fire 5 makes you immune to lava and torches etc. but not fireballs and dragon breath; and similarly, Resist Cold 5 makes you immune to hypothermia and brainfreeze and crap.

The rules still say:

Each resistance ability is defined by what energy type it resists and how many points of damage are resisted. It doesn’t matter whether the damage has a mundane or magical source.

But the intent behind the weird rule was clarified later, I just can't for the life of me remember where; it's probably FAQ or Sage though, so take that for what you will.

[hogarth]

Sounds like a seriously powered down adventure. I mean, Rogues and rogue-type mobs like dark creepers need some room to do their thing and it sounds like the map is an anti-rogue map.

Yes, aside from a few brutal encounters in the second (?) module, I gather it's a fairly dull adventure path.

I started playing it, but the adventure hook in the first module is so stupid that my cognitive dissonance meter broke.

[Roy]

If the DM tells you - out of character - that he wants to do thus-and-such to change the game and improve the characters' performance/abilities, an the players refuse, then they are demanding a harder game. To not kill them at that point is a disservice to them. They asked for a harder game, and you should give it to them.

It is not kind to people to respond to their requests to turn things up to hard mode by secretly turning it back to easy mode behind their backs. That's called being a dick. A lying dick.

Now, the reality is that yes, the people you are playing with probably don't want to be playing on hard mode. They don't even know what hard mode means. But if you don't show them hard mode, they'll never know. They asked for hard mode because they think they want it. And faking it because you "know better than they do" is douchebaggery.

They need to know what the fuck they are asking for. And the only way they will ever know is if you fucking give it to them and then pull the curtain back to show them why what they asked for was destined to be like that. And also what the real parameters of the game are that can be changed to alter that destiny.

And yes, on top of that, the people you are dealing with are arrogant buttholes of the first order whose heads are so far up their own asses that they use their appendices as air tanks. That's a problem. It's a problem because they will rebel at the clearest of evidence. They will see that what they asked for ("hard mode" in this case) is not what they wanted, and then they will ask for it again. And they may ask for it several times. Getting killed and disappointed again and again an again. But you still have to give it to them or you are lying to them. Which is you being a worse person than they are.

-Username17

You know, you're saying hard mode a lot here. But you started off saying stock enemies, with no changes. Which isn't hard mode, it's just playing without cheat codes. Now harder sure. But they were getting slaughtered repeatedly by encounters that he had already weakened considerably. In other words, dying constantly WITH cheat codes. How the fuck do you manage that?

[Dr_Noface]

I always liked how 3rd edition removed most of the distinctions between magical and mundane sources of damage. I always thought it was stupid that a gargoyle was immune to being hit by a car unless it was a magical +1 car.

I guess the fire resistance 1 negating lava thing is a weird holdover that they forgot to remove.

[Rathe]

If you are still looking for suggestions that may help the monk, might I suggest some of the following:
Items:
- Monk's Belt (PHB) - + 5 levels to AC, Dmg
- Necklace of Natural Attacks (SS) +1 Ghost Touch, Sure Strike, Paralyzing, Metalline
- Enchanted Ki Straps (maybe with the Metalline)
- Wisdom Bonus item
- Something with enlarge person a few times a day

Feats:
- Superior Unarmed Strike (TOB) + 4 Levels to Monk stuff
- Impr. Natural Att (EB/SS/MM) Increases Size by 1
- Pharoh's Fist (SS) You can do AOE with your stunning fist attacks
- Versitile Unarmed Strike (PH2) You can do B/P/S with UA

Class:
- Shou Disciple (FR:UE) - better BAB, Flurry with weapons
- Ninja (CAdv) with Ascetic Stalker for just going with Ninja Features and keeping the monk stuff

Anyway, monks are tough to make passable, let alone good...well, depending on your standards. Still, with a few of the above he may be able to keep up with the rest of the party.

When gaming with non-optimizers I do enjoy the Monk/Ninja split for crazy unarmed attack goodness. Spend a Ki ability as a swift action for invisibility, then go all Unarmed +9 levels sudden strike on them with Flurry. Not super awesome, but still fun.

- Rathe

[Roy]

The proper way to do it is to run a simulated combat with them that doesn't count. If you really have PCs that flat out don't understand, let them do a mock combat with nothing of value on the line, instead of making them play a brutal scene in which their favorite characters get slaughtered by the DM. That will likely just make them quit the group.

I remain unconvinced that is in any way undesirable.

There are a variety of reason that PCs may make weak characters. One of them I've seen is that they don't want to be important in combat. Seriously, some people just want to roleplay and don't want the pressure of their tactical decisions having a big impact on whether the party lives or dies. If they're okay with that, then by all means the DM should be able to cater to them by simply not putting much weight in their abilities.

So instead of potentially making the wrong decision which might make someone die... they make themselves complete liabilities which interestingly enough is a LOT MORE LIKELY TO MAKE PEOPLE DIE. This only makes sense if you follow Paizil logic. If you look at things forwards, and not backwards it doesn't. And your brilliant solution is 'Oh, I'll just make their actions not matter at all'. Ok. But if their actions do not matter then WHY ARE THEY THERE?

If they don't care that they suck, or maybe even want to suck, I don't see why you as the DM should go about killing them because they're somehow "playing D&D wrong."

There is combat. If you suck in combat you will die in combat. This is not 'setting out to kill them'. It's 'making a character unsuitable to the game'.

Ignoring cop outs.

I wish I thought it through a bit before mentioning the anti-Frank sentiment in at least one of my players (the rest never mentioned him). Sorry about that.

This last session has been a boring crawl. Half a dozen CR 4s (rogue 2 dark creepers) in one room, another half dozen in the next, two rooms with an incorporeal shadow-blending rat swarm that does 1d4 strength damage, another room with four human rogues (level 4). The last session wasn't all that fun either, with just creepers and rogues.

The mobs are too puny to put much of a dent in their healing supplies, the hallways are narrow so it takes a round for the party to even squeeze in enough to join the fight, & none of them can go down in less than two or three hits (44hp each). So fights end up with the party taking a sum total of ~30 damage spread out while taking six rounds and half an hour. It's just a foot-dragging slog where the only threat they pose is boredom.

I told them I'm going to remove the mook-laden fights from the rest of the dungeon and replace them with half as many fights using individually larger mobs (ex. 3 CR 7s instead of two more creeper rooms).

Sounds like a seriously powered down adventure. I mean, Rogues and rogue-type mobs like dark creepers need some room to do their thing and it sounds like the map is an anti-rogue map.

Widening the battle rooms and reducing the mook's numbers while raising their individual CRs might make for more satisfying battles.

What level are these guys again? Because it sounds like they'll go from slow grind to slaughtered repeatedly.

Also, Frank needs to stop stealing the words from my mouth.

Here's a thought: play the fucking game so that everyone is having fun. Period, full stop, exclamation points, eleventy-one, and so on.

See, while I'm liable to agree with you on first blush, the fact of the matter is that as a DM, you put a metric fuckton more work into the game than probably the entire PC party combined. It's your job to create and run everything.

If the idea of the DM as supreme overlord of the universe who giveth and taketh life (but mostly taketh) is Gygaxian and bullshit, then this idea that the DM is the slave of the players' whim/enjoyment is just as bullshit and we need a term for it too.

If I have to create the gameworld, create the plot, prep before the game, keep track of dozens of NPCs/monsters, keep track of all the combat, be the ultimate reference/arbitrator to the rules, and pace the game so it remains interesting, and *then* I have to sit there and hand-tailor your character so that he isn't a suckfest (and only use resources that the player approves of... I mean WTF?), or even worse go back and re-write the game to coddle the suck-tastic PC (and still try to figure out how to make the game seem fun and challenging), then I might as well not run a fucking game, I should go write a story at that point. It'd be less work and probably less stressful.

My solution is to let the players do whatever the fuck they want within the rules established at character creation. It's not my job to make sure the PCs are up to snuff. If your story calls for custom-tailored challenges, then go ahead and stick it to them. Otherwise, create your challenges not with your PCs in mind, but with what makes sense and is appropriate to the situation. Let the PCs sink or swim on their own adaptability.

And I'd tell this monk player that if he's not open to all constructive advice because some of it comes from someone he doesn't like, then he's on his own optimizing his character.

Ya rly. I'm happy to help weak PCs be not weak. I'll volunteer it even. But if they insist on sticking to as they are, well then they can find out the hard way I wasn't kidding.

[Koumei]

But they were getting slaughtered repeatedly by encounters that he had already weakened considerably. In other words, dying constantly WITH cheat codes. How the fuck do you manage that?

Probotector (Mega Drive/Genesis) with the Konami Code. It gives you something like 50 lives, and that should get you as far as level 2, maybe.

But the point still stands that it's still Easy Mode that they're getting wiped out on, while thinking they're winning/good at Nightmare Mode.

As for lava: it's obviously a typo, one they forgot all about. But it's hilarious to leave as is, so I totally do that as a DM. As a player, I do not assume a typo will save my ass if I decide to dance on* lava. Not that lava ever crops up.

*Apparently it has the consistency of plasticine, so sinking/swimming in it is not happening.

[CatharzGodfoot]

*Apparently it has the consistency of plasticine, so sinking/swimming in it is not happening.

Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOlvpE1r-Og

[Prak]

If the DM tells you - out of character - that he wants to do thus-and-such to change the game and improve the characters' performance/abilities, an the players refuse, then they are demanding a harder game. To not kill them at that point is a disservice to them. They asked for a harder game, and you should give it to them.

It is not kind to people to respond to their requests to turn things up to hard mode by secretly turning it back to easy mode behind their backs. That's called being a dick. A lying dick.

Now, the reality is that yes, the people you are playing with probably don't want to be playing on hard mode. They don't even know what hard mode means. But if you don't show them hard mode, they'll never know. They asked for hard mode because they think they want it. And faking it because you "know better than they do" is douchebaggery.

They need to know what the fuck they are asking for. And the only way they will ever know is if you fucking give it to them and then pull the curtain back to show them why what they asked for was destined to be like that. And also what the real parameters of the game are that can be changed to alter that destiny.

And yes, on top of that, the people you are dealing with are arrogant buttholes of the first order whose heads are so far up their own asses that they use their appendices as air tanks. That's a problem. It's a problem because they will rebel at the clearest of evidence. They will see that what they asked for ("hard mode" in this case) is not what they wanted, and then they will ask for it again. And they may ask for it several times. Getting killed and disappointed again and again an again. But you still have to give it to them or you are lying to them. Which is you being a worse person than they are.

-Username17

You know, you're saying hard mode a lot here. But you started off saying stock enemies, with no changes. Which isn't hard mode, it's just playing without cheat codes. Now harder sure. But they were getting slaughtered repeatedly by encounters that he had already weakened considerably. In other words, dying constantly WITH cheat codes. How the fuck do you manage that?

It's more like the players actively choosing to play "nintendo hard"

As for the Rogue mobs... have you thought about making them a bit more proactive and maybe giving them some extra equipment?

Dark creepers have a +8 climb bonus... give them climbing kits/nekote and have them on the walls, carrying dousing bolts and crossbows. They climb the walls, surround the party from above in the shadows, and then douse all the lights, and strike.

The downside? From what I've read so far, your party will probably bitch about it being cheap.

The upside? The fights aren't so one-sided, and they get some cool equipment if they win. Which they honestly still should.

[Crissa]

Like beating Gannon with the wooden sword. It's possible, but not how the designer envisioned it.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty2]

Isn't making the PCs seem bigger than they are sorta the point of D&D though? You want the PCs to feel like they're heroes and beating the odds so to speak, even though as has been stated before... for the game to work, the odds actually have to be in the PCs favor. Sure Rambo is killing tons of mooks, but the rules actually have to say that Rambo is favored. But you still want to cast your story as though what he did was a big deal.

You want the PCs to feel like they're doing big heroic things and not just on pest control.

Illusionism can be a good thing sometimes.

[Prak]

Isn't making the PCs seem bigger than they are sorta the point of D&D though?

Yes. Yes it is.

[TheFlatline]

Isn't making the PCs seem bigger than they are sorta the point of D&D though? You want the PCs to feel like they're heroes and beating the odds so to speak, even though as has been stated before...

Fair point, but then I have to ask...

Why have rules for PC death? Why discuss the notion of characters failing? Is that part of the illusion?

Believe me, I'm a huge fan of "story first" and fudging some stuff if it keeps the story exciting and engaging, but nobody stays interested for long if they're just playing in god mode.

What's worse, it's *really* boring for the DM and leads to burnout, and without a DM there is no game.

I'm not a fan of insta-death, no-win scenarios, or intentionally putting 5th level characters into a 17th level encounter with no means of avoiding the encounter (true story, and then he was surprised when the entire PC party stopped playing at the end of that very session). But for a story to mean something, to feel like you really beat the odds, there has to be odds to be beaten. Hell the phrase "beat the odds" means you *should* fail, but your ingenuity, lucky, and just plain trickery mean you succeeded.

I like playing a game that I can lose, and not losing. Maybe I'm weird though.

[Murtak]

For me "the point of DnD" is exponential power growth. It is the only reason to pick this game over other more mechanically sound systems and the reason to play in DnD settings instead of playing in less insane settings.

How does that relate to "beating the odds"? Strictly speaking, not at all. It does mean that you can walk all over yesterdays challenges though. You can go from finding a way to deal with the ogre/mind flayer/wyvern at all to having one of them for every player to watching the party hacking them into bloody bits as an afterthought in a single adventure. And that can easily feel like you are beating the odds. Just by gaining a couple of levels you can turn a challenge for the entire party into something you can expect to easily deal with yourself. And when your first memory of a wyvern includes someone desperately throwing out their last spells as cure light wounds just to keep the ranger alive for one more round so the rogue can get in that one more full sneak attack wyverns get mentally pegged as total badasses. If you later slaughter an entire nest of wyverns you are therefore not only total badasses but also lucky bastards and probably had a great plan too.

[Koumei]

What's worse, it's *really* boring for the DM and leads to burnout, and without a DM there is no game.

I know what you mean. As a DM, I want the players to win, and to sometimes feel awesome smacking mooks about with flashy abilities, and sometimes go "Holy shit, how did we manage that?"

The former is really easy. The latter involves basically doing interesting Monster Creation exercises. Like the "Two Shambling Mounds. Each has swallowed (but not digested or crunched up) a pair of Shocker Lizards."

The PCs all had Fast Healing (small). So every turn, the PCs, regained a few HP, took a little zap damage, and maybe got slapped about. Every turn, the mounds got more HP and better Fort saves, but got charged, full attacked etc.

It lasted ages, but it actually wore the party down, made them feel they were in danger until the first one dropped, and everyone thought it was hilarious.

So on the one hand? It takes a fair amount of time to find that sweet spot of "Make them worry a bit, but they'll probably win." On the other, it lets you basically do character creation for weird throwaway fights and play with the rules. On the other hand, shit, I have three hands, NOOOO

[TheFlatline]

For me "the point of DnD" is exponential power growth. It is the only reason to pick this game over other more mechanically sound systems and the reason to play in DnD settings instead of playing in less insane settings.

How does that relate to "beating the odds"? Strictly speaking, not at all. It does mean that you can walk all over yesterdays challenges though. You can go from finding a way to deal with the ogre/mind flayer/wyvern at all to having one of them for every player to watching the party hacking them into bloody bits as an afterthought in a single adventure. And that can easily feel like you are beating the odds. Just by gaining a couple of levels you can turn a challenge for the entire party into something you can expect to easily deal with yourself. And when your first memory of a wyvern includes someone desperately throwing out their last spells as cure light wounds just to keep the ranger alive for one more round so the rogue can get in that one more full sneak attack wyverns get mentally pegged as total badasses. If you later slaughter an entire nest of wyverns you are therefore not only total badasses but also lucky bastards and probably had a great plan too.

That's an excellent point. However, that really *requires* you to play hardball with your players, or at least hard enough that your level-adjusted challenge is a *challenge*, otherwise if you smoke a wyvern the first time you meet it, smoking a nest of them a few levels later doesn't have that same impact.

[Murtak]

That's an excellent point. However, that really *requires* you to play hardball with your players, or at least hard enough that your level-adjusted challenge is a *challenge*, otherwise if you smoke a wyvern the first time you meet it, smoking a nest of them a few levels later doesn't have that same impact.

Quite true. You do run the risk of wiping the PCs right at the beginning of the adventure. It works noticeably better with both defensive monsters and PCs (as far as anything in 3E can actually be considered defensive). Thankfully my regular group values defense rather highly. It also works better when they are willing to disengage and fight another day. This part, they aren't doing so well with.