|
I'm assuming most would say no. The reason I ask is my group will be encountering Liebdaga this week and if I wanted to use him to his full potential despite his weakened condition, I would not use the tactics outlined in his stat block.
What I would do: Liebdaga opens combat by casting wall of fire, second round refocus, third round fireball and move to stand in wall of fire, refocus, full attack action. Repeating full attack while standing in the wall. I mean, that's what devil's do man. They can't be hurt by fire.
But the tactics I think are also written to help with the CR-appropriateness of the encounter in mind. At least that's what I've observed. Do folks pay attention to the tactics or at least keep them in mind when the encounter starts?
|
I almost always use the tactics as best I can, with my own additions along similar lines. I like to think they're there for a reason. After all, enemies don't always make the most effective choices, they make mistakes like the PCs. Plus it brings a bit more flavor to the table, rather than the most 'efficient' choice every time.
I use the tactics as written because it makes the first few rounds of combat much more streamlined for the DM, especially when the DM is facing off one monster versus the whole party and has to consider his moves extremely carefully, or when the DM is doing the above but with 20 minions to consider as well (yeah, the final battle of Second Darkness is awesome... thanks for filling it with 18 or so npcs that can't hit the PCs at their level of wealth. sigh.).
Sometimes, the tactics say that the enemy toys with the PCs or doesn't take them seriously. This is designer code for 'If he goes base-to-base and full attacks every turn, you will TPK your party'. Listen to that advice.
And for Liebdaga... honestly, Wall of Fire would be too overkill for him. Just remember that your PCs are level eight. A fighter at level 8 might have like 80 to 90-ish hit points if he's been rolling them, and Liebdaga can easily, no problems whatsoever, kill a player on average damage alone with just one full round action where every attack lands, grab goes through and he does constrict damage. And that's if the fighter's at full health-- they have to fight his cage before they fight him, and then they get hit by his cage shattering. They're not going to be pristine.
On top of THAT, Liebdaga's poison is DC 23, does 1d6 Con damage-- so the person who gets full attacked and is unlucky can take between -8 and -24 HP from the con damage alone on the first round. On top of that, even if he doesn't die from Liebdaga's full attack and the 1-6 Con damage, he has to make 3 successful saves in a row to not keep taking 1-6 Con damage, which is so fun if he lowers your Fort save by 3 on the first roll. Not to mention the disease that onsets immediately for d4 strength damage, lowering their CMD for his tail grab.
He's rough enough.
With Wall of Fire, everyone in melee will be taking 2d6+11 damage or 2d4 damage and everyone else will be taking 1d4 damage. Your plan is pretty much the foundation for a straight TPK with only one real caveat. I could see Liebdaga putting up Wall of Fire (2d6+11 avg 18 no save to anyone who he draws through-- which means everyone in the party), fireballing (10d6, avg. 35), wall of fire doing 2d6+11/2d4/1d4 again, and then Liebdaga just picking off those who aren't dead and didn't retreat with plain standard actions. Oh, and since he's intelligent, he'd wall off the exit so you have to take damage to get out as well.
The only caveat is if your party has an Oracle or Sorceror with Protection from Energy who can put it on every member of the party. Otherwise, they're all dead. Way dead.
Creative Director
|
The tactics sections are included in the adventures for 2 reasons, really.
1) So that GMs who don't have as much experience running the game have a "blueprint" to work with in the encounter.
2) To establish a monster's personality. Often, we'll deliberately give a monster sub-standard tactics for various reasons; the monster might be stupid or uncreative or brain damaged, or he might be a tactical genius or a over-planner or whatever. In Liebdaga's case, the devil's a little bit brain-damaged from his long stint as fuel for a house; this has messed with his mind a bit and just as his magical abilities are reduced, so is his tactical sense.
Feel free to adjust ANY of the tactics you see in a Paizo adventure, but if you do so, I would only ask that you make sure you're not doing so just to milk an encounter's setup to make it as absolutely deadly as possible. Not every monster the PCs face should be a mastermind.
|
Creative Director
|
3) Using the tactics as written keeps the DM from inadvertently (or purposefully) circumventing the players planning. Since the DM is sitting right there as the players decide on their tactics it becomes very easy for the DM to thwart their plans. Using the tactics section as written helps ensure the players can actually outsmart some enemies since they could never really outsmart the DM. Thats why I almost always use the tactics as written and hopefully Paizo will continue to write them in the published products. In my group the DM is a referee -not an adversary- the tactics sections help ensure it stays this way.
Correct, although I see that as a variant of my #2: not all monsters are tactical geniuses. But you make a great point: it's IMPORTANT that the PCs should get a chance to outsmart monsters now and then. I've seen players before do the "let's plot our tactics in secret so the GM can't hear us and change his monsters to defeat us easier" huddle, and that's a behavior I'd rather not see perpetuated at gaming tables. By using the published tactics, you give your players more chances to feel like smart heroes who can outmaneuver the bad guys. That's good for the game.
And if you do so, when you DO have a super-brilliant tactician enemy, he'll actually FEEL like a super-brilliant tactician and not just like every other goblin and brown bear.