I mean, the Monk being immune to poison doesn’t save anyone else in the breath attack.
Part of D&D is building synergy between the classes and operating as a team. At the same time, it’s the group’s biggest vulnerability.
Mind-splort the meat shield, gum up the support, grapple the damage dealer, or backstab the controller. Suddenly, the team is scrambling as their game plan falls apart.
And green dragons have so many tricks up their sleeves! The last thing I’m worried about is the breath weapon. It’s our horny bard falling for her damned come-hither smile that keeps me up at night.
I tailor my encounters to what my players like, not what’s going to challenge their dice and IRL luck. If my players are finding themselves having to cheese their build and pick the optimum feats and talents just so they can stand a chance, then I’ve failed as a DM.
If you’re cheesing your build because you want to feel powerful, just tell me, and I’ll do a campaign where you can feel powerful without needing to cheese your build. You should be able to make the character you want to roleplay as without feeling like you’re inadvertently gimping yourself.
It’s why I like Genesys and Powered by the Apocalypse, because those are RP heavy systems that don’t require you to spend ages messing with stats in order to play the character you want to play.
Some people like to cheese their build to feel clever. But then again, solving riddles has a similar effect.
Tbh, I don’t really get why this is an issue. As a DM I balance the game however feels good for everyone. My main strategy is that being more powerful shouldn’t make the game easier but should give you more freedom and options.
And the game should never be too hard. To most people, losing a character sucks really hard, so character deaths should always be consentual.
I’m that weird exception about character death, partly because I like building new characters, and partly because I like seeing characters get cool ends. Like my low-mid level bard who, while the party was on its last legs in a boss battle, leapt at the dragon’s face from an elevated position to attack at its face, mouth, throat, whatever he could get. IIRC, that bard and the dragon both died from that choice.
Edit: The campaign was at that point based in a small-medium town in a cold region. I remember the town had like 4 notable families, ones whose names meant something to folks in the area, and my bard was of one of the upper couple ones. So his death was definitely storied, crazy Uncle Artanis who died saving his friends and the region from a dragon.
My replacement character was a half-orc cleric who had trouble figuring out how to respect both halves of his heritage, and, in a big BSOD moment, rather than execute the defeated members of an orc tribe who refused to change their ways, he cast off his magic gear (armor, weapons, rings, whatever he had) and just walked off into the snowy forest, never to be played again. Which was just the only action I could imagine for him; he had “life” inside my head, and it was what “he” chose (I do not have DID).
That was 15+ years ago, and I only recently decided that he ended up forming a community of outcasts, people who couldn’t find a place in the world, and sponsored conscientious adventurers. I like to think that tribe of orcs, if they survived, at least respected his community and didn’t try to raid it.
Let your players do cool shit. Let them be good at what they built their character for. You can challenge them while still giving them opportunities to be awesome.
I’ll say that it’s less of an issue, 9 times out of 10, because what they’re going to be good at is weathering repeated encounters.
There’s so many monsters that do poison damage - especially in the mid levels - that you’d be hard pressed to run a campaign where they just stop showing up. Are you just not going to send anyone through the Underdark because a Monk is in the party? Stop using half the demons, aberrations, and magical beasts in the MM?
But for climatic fights, it can add to the drama when the encounter is on disadvantagous terms. Sometimes the cool shit is overcoming the seeming impossible.
Last campaign I ran the paladin was so proud of herself for smiting down a couple lesser demons and gushed about it for the rest of the week. So for the next 3 arcs of that campaign I snuck in a cambion who was hounding the party and got his lights clocked in multiple times just knowing the dopamine release it gave that player even when every ‘challenging’ encounter crafter for that group was done in about 5 terms and took me nearly and hour to craft ahead of time.
To me as the DM it’s your job to learn what quirks or functionality of the players particularly enjoy about their characters and find a way to sneak in encounters, puzzles or situations that give that player time to shine and enjoy it. Even and especially if it trivializes the challenge you put into it.
I managed to work up an immunity to Poison, so our DM had a drow princess get one last action when she got to 0 hp to attack me with her only attack spell as I had severely pissed her off, and it was cast at 5th level
But her only attack spell was Ray of Sickness
Now this is how you make a player feel like a badass.
How long did you have to spend to become immune to Iocane powder?
But you know that I know that you know that I know!
Did that and when the monk was engulfed in the cloud of poison taking no damage he felt like quite the badass going for a flurry of blows with advantage (I told him with advantage because the dragon wasn’t expecting him to be unfazed and he kept himself concealed in the cloud on his approach).
That’s also when the rest of the party found out the monk was immune to poison.
10/10 would do that again
Look, they’re the main characters of the story, they’re supposed to look badass sometimes…
Plus it’s just far more fun when players get to actually use the character building decisions they made. I think it’s much more fun to base enemy actions on what they can reasonably perceive. If someone has innate fire resistance, let the enemy sorcerer cast burning hands on them once to figure that out. If it’s a fabled and well-known Robe of Fire Resistance that they’re wearing, any half-intelligent spellcaster will know not to use fire spells on them, but the goblins with flaming arrows might not be so savvy.
But you see, that’s not how 5e works. 5e just throws an endless amount of instant problem solving abilities at your players to the point where there are no problems left except for “How do I deal even more damage?”. It still kind of works with characters up to level 7ish, but everything after is just cool™ character moments without any problem left to overcome. I mean, there’s a reason why almost no one plays double digit levels in DnD.
I just finished my last DnD campaign and am now enjoying my life with systems that allow me as the DM to actually challenge my players without the need to spend several days of preparation to make sure my encounters won’t just be solved by a single “Um actshually…” sentence.
I don’t want to sit here defending 5e but 80% of the complaints I hear about always seem to boil down to “why isn’t the system creative for me?!”. It’s a lot of people self-limiting and then being mad.
You can instantly create a harder, thoughtful encounter by simply introducing more enemies than just one they can beat on, and/or by doing WHAT THE BOOK SAYS and get the players used to multiple encounters per day so they need to manage their resources. My DM wanted to make fights harder and I simply mentioned that a stronger enemy is cool and all but what would be better is making us have to make choices. I was a stupid accurate fighter and focused on range, and while feats and stuff made me a dangerous close-quarters fighter I was also the only one who could reliably down other ranged enemies. We played up to level 13 in that campaign and there were a lot of fights that were pretty stressful and fun. We even had a tournament arc and that was wild.
Your inability to create complex encounters is not the fault of the system, especially when the system literally tells you how to make it work and you ignore what’s in the book. But, of course, not reading the material is pretty standard procedure for D&D players.
Wrong. I’m perfectly capable of creating complex encounters. It’s just a fact that the system actively punishes any DM who tries to set up a FUN encounter because there’s so many special abilities that just simply solve any inconvenience at the cost of an action.
My players should feel rewarded because they managed to build a campfire from discarded boxes so that they have a steady source of light during an important fight and not feel punished because they picked one of the threeish races that don’t have darkvision.
My players should feel clever because they managed to fashion a pulley system to move a significant amount of treasure out of the dungeon and not because they just stuffed everything into their bag of holding and forgot about it.
5e is boring by design and making it interesting means fighting against the system every step of the way!
“Wrong, I don’t reward players for being smart so it’s bad!” Dude my group went into town and bought a bunch of fertilizer and other things(because I checked and making explosives actually isn’t that difficult apparently) and that, plus a bomb-crazy dwarf we knew nearby, let us do some crazy damage to a golem.
You like a certain style of play, fine, but acting like that’s the only way to feel rewarded is showing your limitations, not the system’s.
You just gave a perfect example for my “How do I deal even more damage?” point and you don’t even realize it. Do you? If all you have is a hammer…
I very much did not. He was complaining about D&D having spells that made him feel bad and I offered an example of how there’s more to 5e than spellslots to get the job done.
Do you think we don’t also talk our way out of problems? We do that all the time. I routinely, even with -1 charisma, would do shit all the time to get us out of dangerous fights and solve problems in more ways than “gun”.
And none of you have even given examples as to why other systems are better so please, do go on.
deleted by creator
I’ve run campaigns all the way up the level 20. It’s still possible that to challenge the PCs, just increasingly difficult. Eventually it gets to be so much work on the DM that it’s not really worth it anymore.
Any favorites? Our DnD campaign just fizzled out due to several unsatisfying sessions - mostly due to an increasingly boring combat experience.
See, my question here would be “Why is combat boring in your games?” Because I see a lot of people try to fix D&D by focusing on making the most interesting board game possible, but roleplaying games aren’t board games, they’re stories.
For me, combat in systems like Shadowrun, D&D, WFRP, Storyteller and so on is boring because it brings the game to a crashing halt. The fact that it can takes hours of table time to play out a few rounds of combat in most of those systems is, to my mind, a far bigger issue than their relative quality as tactical gameplay experiences. Shadowrun tried to layer on more and more special moves and manuevers and combat abilities in the name of making combat more “interesting” and the effect was the exact opposite as so much more of the game became looking up the mechanics for the specific action you’re trying to take.
Combat should be fast and vibrant, and sometimes really scary. A firefight in Shadowrun - my go-to because it’s the game I run the most - should feel like a shootout from Heat or Ronin, or a John Wick movie. And it’s impossible to make anything feel like that when it takes an hour for everyone to get a single turn in.
This is just my take at the end of the day, but I don’t think the solution to boring combat is more or better rules. I tried that for years and nothing ever worked. What did work was finally shifting to more narrative focused systems with minimal, versatile rules that allowed me to treat combat just like anything else in the game. That way I could stop focusing on tracking hit-points and initiative, and I can make combat flow into the rest of the rest of the story in a way that feels natural, fluid, and visceral.
Completely agree. Combat should feel fast and dangerous. With 5e It feels exactly like what it is. A bunch of sweaty nerds having a make believe d*ck measuring contest of whose made up character is the most awesome. But combat is far from the only problem here.
I think my biggest complaint might actually be that no matter what you plan to do, you’re pretty much always better off just bonking your opponent and doing damage.
Taking an extra turn to sneak around enemies and take them out stealthily? Hitting two turns in a row is better! Grapling an enemy to give your teammate a better chance at succeeding his attack? Still, two bonks will do twice as much damage. Healing? Complete waste of time as long as your HP stays above zero (and even then it only matter when you’re still down by the start of your mext turn).
But I think my biggest paint points are not even combat related. It’s stuff like dark vision, spider climb, passive perception or Alarm, fly or breathless nature. A lot of characters start with these get out of jail free cards from level 1. 5e players will never experience the sense of dread and excitement that comes from exploring a deep windy dungeon with only a couple of torches that may run out at any given moment. 5e players will never struggle to hunt down enough prey in the arctic wilderness because someone will just cast goodberry.
DnD takes everything that makes the journey just as interesting as the goal and throws it away. There’s only this fight and then a ling/short rest followed by the next fight. That’s really all the fun DnD allows its players to have.
I’ve switched to GURPS because the mechanics aren’t so combat-focused, but it has interesting combat mechanics too. A lot of people think it’s too complicated, but I’ve always started off super simple and slow-dripped additional mechanics as players get comfortable with the system and start actively looking for more crunch.
I do think it balances the super involved, tactical combat well by making rounds much shorter. Instead of 6 second rounds with Action, Reaction, Bonus Action, Movement, you have 1 second rounds that give you a single Action. There are ways to squeeze in a bit more on your turn, but it comes with trade-offs, like sacrificing active defense.
Active defense is also a great mechanic. Instead of just swinging at an AC, the defender actually gets an opportunity to Parry, Block, or Dodge. This means a lot less damage gets done every round, but that’s balanced by having way fewer Hit Points. I always thought people chipping away at each other’s mountains of HP until one dies to be kinda boring and unrealistic. In real fights, it’s generally a back and forth of attack and defense until an attack finally gets through and does significant damage.
And I won’t really get into all the details of the many different maneuvers available to you, or the techniques you can train. I’ll just say that it’s extremely tactical and provides for suspenseful combat with real stakes.
It’s honestly really funny to me how frequently some DMs forget basic writing principles. If something is set-up, either by yourself or your players, you should find a way to pay it off. It’s a really lame story if your monk has developed an immunity to poison and it never comes up a single time. Chekov’s gun was made to be fired!
But by no longer utilizing poison against the party because of the monk, the monk has effectively made the entire party immune to poison by virtue of it no longer being present in encounters! Hah!
But seriously though, cutting out stuff you know the party will hard-counter is just going to make the party not feel as cool. A balance of both is important. Believe me, as the guy in the party who could cast Silence, I know; hard-countering every boss encounter kind of makes the boss feel lame instead of fun.
I feel like too many DMs play against the players instead of with them
The goal is not for the DM to win and feel cool
The goal is to let the players win and feel cool
I prefer the BLeeM method: try to kill them and then be amazed at how they, like cockroaches, survive anyways
The goal is to let the players win and feel cool
I wouldn’t use “win” here because that’s not always the case. I’d say’
“The goal is to acknowledge players decisions and show that their actions matter, regardless of the final result.”
The number of online dms I hear complaining about flight speed races and flight spell boggles my mind. You just got licence to make 3d puzzles and encounters. And also show those players why spiders in magic the gathering had the ability to defend against flying creatures through out the 90s
I’m somewhat glad that Pathfinder doesn’t have silence in the same way that dnd has and nerfed the shit out of counterspell as well. The second one makes it so much more satisfying when you get to do it.
You also don’t need to make every enemy an idiot like a videogame. Monk catches an arrow? Archer wastes a turn figuring that out, calls it out to his teammates start of next turn and targets someone else.
A green dragon, depending on your source books, should be more than smart enough to notice its breath attack didn’t work on someone and change tactics.
It doesn’t work in every situation, like with enemies that shouldn’t be smart enough to figure it out, but there’s some great room for fun reminding your players that the enemies aren’t always braindead.
It also can add an extra layer to combat. Take out the commander that’s noticing this stuff to prevent it. Kill the archer before he can call out the monk caught his arrow, so another archer wastes a turn.
Talking is a free action. He’d say it right away.
I dunno if the new books do this, but when I started DMing, I was surprised that actually the NPCs are like a video game. They have rules for their behavior that dictates what they will attempt to do, and will be fairly stupid if you just do things by the book.
Your monk can catch arrows now? Don’t stop shooting them. Shoot them more.
Monk - burns reaction catching arrow
Dm - “and now they turn the balista on you”
Monk - O_O
DM- “Catch this, monk boy”
Even better, just have that inscribed on the ballista bolt/arrow/the flying tree.
I’d like to imagine the monk catching the ballista projectile and getting whisked away by it
In a comedically Looney Toons style
I meant to reply to you with this
https://lemmy.world/comment/19940495
he was a pretty high level at the time and had some magical tattoos as well It was a fun game.
I once let our monk deflect a ballista bolt because he said he was going to do the redirecting with his flying kick instead of his hands, so I had him roll acrobatics with disadvantage since his reaction time would have to be through the roof to pull it off.
rolled two nat 20’s. Not only did that ballista go sailing right back at the machine that fired it, it utterly destroyed it and the three dudes manning it, because after kicking half a telephone pole back at your enemies, you’ve earned the right to walk away from an explosion without looking at it.
I also made him roll to see if he hurt himself landing and he did, so he had to deal with a bad ankle the rest of the encounter (-3 dex, I am a jealous god)
Yes! Shoot your Monk is standard GM advice! they took those powers to look badass, just give them one useless archer per combat and they will shine! And throw arrows!
And if you still want to throw them a curveball you can always throw in the occasional bit of exotic ammunition that messes with them when they catch it (Use sparingly so they still get to feel cool)
I have a character in a campaign DM’d by my buddy, and they’re a pretty weak build, as he was giving powerups to the party I asked for a much weaker change to my character that would let me make an attack while staying hidden.
Literally, the first time I got to try out the strategy, it was immediately invalidated, and I wanted to quit on the spot. The one cool thing my character could do I wasn’t allowed to do…
Reminds me of the time my GM buddy wanted lunch at school and offered me 3 capital ships in our SW RPG game if I bought him a taco salad. So I did and then promptly lost two of them in a battle that was more of a cutscene than anything else.
I was pissed but whatever the one ship ended up being fun.
So later, in another game, I did the same for a submarine. Again, same session, we found the enemy on land after searching around in the sub. So we get out and have this epic battle where our characters take out a goblin army or something. Then we go to get back in the sub. “You never said you turned it off, so it’s gone.” So what we breached the surface and all tuck and rolled to get off of it, no roll to avoid getting sucked in to the propellers or anything?
I think that’s about when I just went back to playing magic most of the time at lunch at school.
time to change their title from buddy to acquaintance
I have started to balance the game less and less and its getting more and more fun.
First, hell yes.
Second, if you like being an adversarial DM, just let them know that’s the type of game you like to run. They don’t have to play and you will have to find some players that like that style.
This was always frustrating. One particular dm did that a lot. Oh, x was showing up so someone took y ability to deal with it? X no longer shows up ever again. Cool. Feels bad.
