symphara's page

Most players will make a knowledge roll to find out that Ettins have crappy reflex saves and light them up with lightning bolts.

I did essentially the same. The informants could reasonable find out about X. So it is reasonable for mister noble to have this available to counter it.

The party had 2 major strategies they used in big fights.
1) Wall of fire/force then buff and summon behind it.

2) Fly/levitate the entire party and missile fire spell the enemy into submission.

The first was done lots of times in front of lots of witnesses. Including right in front of town to stop a raid.

The bard, actually made up a song about the second to help spread their reputation, make fun of the boss (who was mister noble), and command higher wages.

So the first counter strike force from mister noble he gave everyone a potion of fly to go over around the wall and meet the party if they took off. They also had a couple of scrolls of dismissal to get rid of some of the summoned creatures.

They stopped that force mostly with massed missile fire. But it was a tougher fight than they were expecting.

The second stike force had several spells like protection from normal missiles, obscuring mist, and wind wall to screw with the archers. Exactly like the players would have done if they new they were going up against someone with better archers than them.

The party was helped to win that...

That's perfectly reasonable. See, you can easily find challenges for your group that are fun for you and them, without necessarily constructing some implausible scenario to punish them.

I don't get DMs who - in a perfectly open game - complain about having "overpowered characters". That's like claiming you found the largest number.

A genuine problem is a large efficiency difference between players, which is a completely different topic.

You die a lot in high-level play, but at that level death is a condition that's easy, if expensive, to overcome.

Not in my experience.

PS: Let me expand. I am long term player and a know lots of people who play DnD. I never heard of games where certain players die every other game or so, as claimed above. That sounds very harsh. Nor do I know anyone who'd put up with something like this. Generally people get annoyed or upset when their characters die.

Not to say my personal experience is the end-all! But such a high death rate is reminiscent of wiping in WoW raids, not DnD. In DnD death is generally supposed to be much more serious. You role play, not arcade.

Plus, as they get to higher levels, PCs start having access to all sorts of bail-out methods not available at low levels, which is why I see character deaths slowing down in frequency as PCs go up in level (and players themselves get more experienced and know their limits, i.e. they are about to get hammered!).

^You're confusing the NPC's goals with the GM's aims. The NPC IS trying to engineer 'anti-PC' agents. The GM is making a tough encounter that is focused on the PCs' abilities, but there is a distinct separation between NPC hatred and GM design.^

No, quite the contrary. I'm arguing that the DM shouldn't confuse his role with the role of the NPCs.

I have done exactly that. But it was not to 'win' against the party. They had managed to make a very influential enemy. He investigated and spied on them. Then he would put together groups specifically to negate their typical strategies and capabilities.

Challenged the group, forced them to develop some new strategies, and gave them a real reason to go after that noble.

To me it seems unfair, and I'd dare say, unfriendly. Every time I saw it done it felt like a bullying tactic and usually at least one player didn't have fun as a result of this.

It doesn't fit well in any story, in my opinion. Spy all you want, and still, no enemy would know in that amount of detail - as the DM does - the PCs' build/gear/feats/spells etc.

So here there's a gap between "we meet again and now I'm better prepared against your tactics, especially as I've been watching you, Mr. Bond" and "I know your Will save and Escape Artist skill ranks and you're about to be toast".

On top of that, the DM usually has a lot of control over what players get, at the very least in terms of equipment, unusual classes, feats or companions etc. so it's a bit forced to punish the players for being "too effective" when in fact as a DM you could have taken measures to prevent exaggerated features. I think it's hard to make an overpowered character just using the core rules and gear; the DM must have approved something off the beaten track that probably has a very effective synergy with the PC's build. So the DM must take responsibility.

I am a firm believer that a good DM can come up with great challenges that are fun both for him/her and the party without resorting to engineering perfect anti-PC encounters. I've been playing long enough and I saw great DMs doing just that, so it's definitely possible.

Now it's hard to comment on the OP's specific problem because he didn't include specific details (as in, what exactly is broken?). But I disagree with his attitude, I think he's asking the wrong question.

If it were up to me, I'd change Combat Expertise to the following:

You gain a +1 competence bonus to attack rolls or armor class, chosen each round at the start of your turn. At BAB +4 and each +4 thereafter, this bonus increases by +1, but may never exceed your INT bonus.

Now it's relevant, there's no disconnect from the feat name and its function, and it'll help you get better at those maneuvers you were after in the first place.

I wish it worked like Canny Defense (add Int to AC). But I suppose it's good for "tanking" characters, although this is not WoW and it's much harder to taunt in DnD/Pathfinder.

I was fully prepared for them to not surrender. Didn't really expect them to, to be honest.

I wasn't at all prepared for them to murder the children (proven by my having panicked and retconed the situation).

Frankly I don't fully understand what the problem is.

Initially I thought you were frustrated because the group didn't surrender, as heroes are supposed to do, in a certain interpretation (which I personally don't agree with).

Now you make it clear that you weren't expecting them to surrender, so what is the problem? To me it sounds like they did an evil thing, if they attacked blindly with AoEs.

Can't you adjust the story/reaction of the NPCs (and possibly, the PCs' alignment, at least temporarily) to reflect the situation?

What do you mean by "Min-maxing some encounter on a nominally achievable CR but in fact engineered on the player's weaknesses, just to defeat them"?

Ahem, just that :)

Calculate the "hard" or "epic" CR for the party in question. Pick NPCs, feats, spells to meet that CR but specifically to minimise the PC's strengths and maximise their weaknesses.

Do I have a crit-happy fighter who does tons of damage? Choose uncrittable NPCs and lots of DR against his particular weapon.

Sneaky rogue? Do they like to flank? Spinkle blindsight and uncanny dodge liberally.

Anyone with bad fort saves? Disintegrate and Finger of Death incoming.

And so forth.

This is engineering an encounter, knowing the PC's class(es), feats, spells, tactics, and gear, to specifically defeat them, while pretending it was all fair because the CR was appropriate for the party.

Some DMs do it and I hear them using "broken combos" as the no. 1 reason for their choice, when in fact they just want to "pwn" the party.

I agree in general, with the exception of coup de grace. If a villain gets a chance to do that then they will every time. It isn't because I'm being mean, but because bad guys are well BAD GUYS. It is usually pretty hard to get off a coup de grace, you have to take a full round action and provoke AOs, so if the party isn't protecting its wounded, and a villain gets a chance, then boom they are in there being evil.

That being said I wouldn't have mindless monsters do that, just the eeeeevvviiiiillll guys.

I would pull all the tricks in the book to kill PCs. Provided, of course, it's a reasonable CR to them, and the encounter fits the story. But of course I'd let them ressurect with no XP or level penalty, if they are defeated. There's nothing wrong with preparing specifically against some PC combos, again, if it fits the story (e.g. recurrent arch-enemy).

And I would avoid taking their stuff permanently. Players just hate that, and I think it takes so long to get good gear that it's really unfair to them, and plainly not fun.

Min-maxing some encounter on a nominally achievable CR but in fact engineered on the player's weaknesses, just to defeat them, doesn't seem like fun for anybody but a power-hungry, selfish, insecure DM.

Take it outside.

That's pretty arrogant of you [...]

Lighten up.

Talk about arrogant!

his character has died outright exactly twice ... unlike certain other characters who pretty much die every other game or so.

Wow. I am genuinely surprised they keep gaming with you.

Sorry for the length of the post, looking for advice on a build.

If your DM allows older prestige classes into the game, there's something called Commando from Ultimate Prestige Classes.

It's 5 levels, and at level 1 it gets a class ability called "Snipe". It works like this: you hide, start shooting, and with each attack your opponents get a cumulative +2 to spot you. Until you're spotted, Bob's your uncle.

Also at level 5 it "upgrades" Point-Blank Shot to +2 to hit/damage and 60ft range. It also lets you sneak attack within 60ft.

If you can't use this, I think you won't be that effective unless your party helps a lot. Without flanking you just can't reliably do your signature damage ability.

It's also a good idea to get Rapid Shot and Weapon Focus as soon as possible.

he's a HUGE min-maxer but also is very acutely aware that his character could be gamebreaking so he just keeps a low profile in most combats

I really feel sorry for that person. A min-maxer would probably be quite unhappy to be brownbeatten into not playing his/her character properly and "keeping a low profile" for fear of a DM who can't think of anything smart to do.

Ya know, I always figured Precise Shot makes a better prereq for Point-Blank Shot than the other way around. After all, Point-Blank represents precision greater than Precise does...

Yes, I think the same. It's incredibly hard to play a ranged character at low levels without Precise Shot, when your to-hit is also pretty terrible, your friends are always in melee with the baddies, and you take the -4 penalty.

Our DM just ruled that my two-scimitar dervish/tempest/fighter/rogue can take Web of Steel (yay), so now I have to take the bitter pill of Combat Expertise. Must be a strong contender for the most useless feat. Particularly with WoS, which gives a high AC, it makes no sense to want to reduce attack for armor. On the other hand, my DM realises that and I think he was ok with WoS because it's effectively a two-slot feat.

Having the players embark on a campaign to slay a dragon is not railroading.

Deciding beforehand that the players are going to succeed or fail, no matter what, and then fixing the game on the fly to make it so, is railroading.

Repeatedly running the players through scenarios in which there's only one way out or they die also counts as railroading.

Lot's of DM's don't find it fun when their campaign is wrecked because of PC's using broken combos.

What do you mean, broken combos? If as a DM you think something is broken, you are free to disallow it and explain to the player why so.

Sounds like this DM didn't correctly evaluate the power of the PC's party. It's his problem, not the fault of the players, who reasonably try to play to the best of their ability and available material.

There's no such thing as "too powerful" PCs. Only DMs who cannot provide appropriate challenges. The trick is to choose or design encounters that are challenging without being unfair to the players.

I am slightly confused when reading threads like this.

It seems that this DM is regarding the game as a "me vs them" scenario. DnD is not such a game. A DM who gets upset with players defeating the encounters is a terrible DM.

Your job as a DM is to maximise the amount of fun for the whole party (including yourself).

This means encounters carefully balanced for the players, so they are new and challenging enough to provide excitment without steamrolling the players. It means flavour, humour, details.

@blue_the_wolf, if you even consider the possibility of killing your players out of spite, I'm surprised any players put up with you. I wouldn't.

What do you think? Do you think this is a good way to set an example of what to do/what not to do? What would you do in this bizzare situation?

I think you might be a bit harsh with your players.

It's entirely possible they didn't see your "solution", or they didn't think it was a solution.

If I were an evil character holding children hostage and a hero would show up, I'd say "surrender and I'll let the children leave". And after the hero surrenders, I'd coup de grace him and keep the children. This is what bad guys do. As a PC, I'd never surrender in such a situation precisely because of this.

You need to give the baddie some plausible motivation for not killing both the heroes and keeping the children hostage after that. You didn't do that, so your players made the rational choice.

My 2 cents: don't put your characters in tricky moral dilemmas if you're potentially going to get upset with the result. It's a game after all, you're all supposed to have fun.