is it kind of unfair to use tricks that PCs use or CAN use against them?
for example... if you have a character that has basically broken the game with an insane build. would you say that countering with one or two very similar NPCs to attack the group would be unfair. even if that will almost guarantee a number of deaths?
to put it more simply. would fighting the group with mirror images of themselves be fair?
I am asking not really out of a sense of fairness but more out of a sence of balance. the PCs are SUPPOSED to be powerful. they are SUPPOSED to be able to work above and beyond the norm. so does that mean the PCs facing enemies equal to themselves is essentially too hard?
"There's always somebody (choose one: cleverer, stronger, faster, more skilled, etc.) than yourself," to paraphrase Merlin.
"Turnabout is fair play," goes another old saying.
The list is endless. The PCs are supposed to be superheroes. But they are not the only superheroes/villains in the world.
I've never had a problem with using my players tricks against them. It's only fair. Besides, your players should be challenged. Watching them trying to overcome their own tactics can be fun sometimes.
I think that step one would be to let the player know that his ridiculous build is making things less fun for you and asking if he would dial it back a bit. Only if he doesn't agree to tone it down and stop breaking the game do you bust out the mirror images and go to town.
is it kind of unfair to use tricks that PCs use or CAN use against them?
Yes.
for example... if you have a character that has basically broken the game with an insane build. would you say that countering with one or two very similar NPCs to attack the group would be unfair. even if that will almost guarantee a number of deaths?
Yes.
to put it more simply. would fighting the group with mirror images of themselves be fair?
That's what mirrors of opposition are for.
I am asking not really out of a sense of fairness but more out of a sence of balance. the PCs are SUPPOSED to be powerful. they are SUPPOSED to be able to work above and beyond the norm. so does that mean the PCs facing enemies equal to themselves is essentially too hard?
No, NOT facing foes equal to themselves is making it too easy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I GM a campaign, one of the things I specifically warn the players is "anything you use, I can use too". I don't put it into practice often, but the option is out there, up front.
If the trick seems to be unlogical while being covered by the RAW, just forbid it.
Point is, a DMs job is to challenge and fight the characters, not to fight the players.
So, what tricks do they use?
If they open the can of whoop ass then it is open for all.
But a mirror copy of the party is way to powerful to work as an encounter.
CR of an NPC is class level -1. But with PC gear it goes up +1, so the CR of a mirror copy of just one PC is that of their level. An encounter built with 4 creatures of the same CR is equal to an Average Party Level encounter 4 higher than current level wich is beyond an EPIC fight.
So yeah maybe a room with one copy of one PC with some phantom lower level henchmen in room 1. Then repeat with a second PC in room 2, but not all at the same time unless you lower the level or gear of the copies.
Murder them with a mustaced version of AM barabarian. it is totally fair having them fight mirror images, and a part of every good fantasy/sci-fi story. they just have to have goatees or mustaches.
I always bring this up in game if I find something that's allowed by RAW but is broken. It happens less now than it did under 3.5.
In 3.5, I would tell the table, 'James wants to do Blah, it's RAW.'
The table would then debate it, and usually either be ok with it, or someone would opine 'Oh god no, if James does that, then Matt will do that to us, and no way I want to be on the receiving end of that. James, go ****** ******* with ******* ******** *******!'.
In general, if there's a bit of cheese the players want to use, then by all means do so. But anything the PCs do, I consider fair game for me to do (and vice versa, I don't do things the players can't do).
My players know better than to start with the "but it's RAW" argument. If that's their only line of defense, it is likely they are intentionally building a character to cause problems.
My players know that I will use the rules to make appropriate encounters. I may take one of their concepts and run with it, I may not. I don't clone them though. They have worked hard on making a unique character and I shouldn't take that away from them. That doesn't mean that the tripping expert isn't going to find another NPC that is also good at tripping, just done differently.
If the player(s) have created characters that are too powerful, I talk to them about what the problem(s) could be. I usually find that we have misinterpreted something and things fall back into place quickly. If we do find that we are interpreting things correctly and the character is still too powerful, then we make appropriate adjustments.
No it isn't unfair, but you also have to avoid NPC meta-gaming, its easier to do than you think. Some stuff on the other hand is just in bad taste. For example; its wrong to combo a butterfly sting using halfling with two keen kukri's in conjunction with a spirited charging 2h lancing cavalier or if you want to make it even worse a ranger with the right (or wrong) favored enemy. You could probably one shot most characters with a x5 crit.
It's important to note that the PCs will ALWAYS lose an arms race with the DM (well, if the DM has any degree of system knowledge). I always am up front with my players that the cheesier they get, the cheesier I will get in response to keep the challenge level consistent.
Someone said it earlier, but the key is just to match the challenge level encounters with what the PCs can do, if they start using +5 Defending Armor Spikes to up their AC, then they might meet some NPC's that do something similar or worse.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a better approach is to say you are becoming famous for using the charging past the melee line and grappling the spell minster tactic. You can even throw some fore shadowing in with an entertainer writing a skit about some of their heroic fights. Then have the bad guys listen to the skit and make a plan that takes advantage of him/them always using the same tactics. After a few encounters have the boss spell caster actually be an illusion hiding a wraith that he tries to grapple and gets clobbered with a bunch of drains.
is it kind of unfair to use tricks that PCs use or CAN use against them?
for example... if you have a character that has basically broken the game with an insane build. would you say that countering with one or two very similar NPCs to attack the group would be unfair. even if that will almost guarantee a number of deaths?
to put it more simply. would fighting the group with mirror images of themselves be fair?
I am asking not really out of a sense of fairness but more out of a sence of balance. the PCs are SUPPOSED to be powerful. they are SUPPOSED to be able to work above and beyond the norm. so does that mean the PCs facing enemies equal to themselves is essentially too hard?
Not only is it fair and balanced but highly neccessary in order the run or play in games I like.
Though if you believe the players are 'SUPPOSED' to be powerful...and able to work above and beyond the norm. Than maybe our play styles are different. In which case it might not be fair and balance for you and your group.
Well, yes... and no.
Yes, generally use the tricks that PCs use or can use? Sure. PCs use a clever tactic involving magic walls to block movement, or flanking tactics or even just a really effective spell? Absolutely turn it around on them.
(The high level EK who loved spamming waves of exhaustion and his party did NOT enjoy it when I threw it right back at them. And the player of the EK said, "Well, I can't complain...")
I should be clear that I do remind my players from time to time, "Remember whatever you're capable of, so am I. And then some."
But if the issue is a broken character build..... and you have NOT discussed the broken build OOC with the player about fixing the broken build... I do not think it is the best way to handle things. I think that calls for....
Everybody, let's say it together now...
TALK TO YOUR PLAYER.
Problem builds tend to go hand in hand with problem players. Often there's a rule being exploited in a way that wasn't intended (or even written). Or the player has bullied the GM into a rules interpretation that isn't fair. Or maybe even the GM allowed a piece of supplementary material he realized later was a mistake, but the player won't let him renege (even if the GM offers a fair deal for a rebuild).
And if you're wanting to "get back" at the player rather than simply remind the players that the resources they use other creatures have access to, sometime.... that's not a good motivation. I don't think running a scenario to get vengeance is a productive idea.
If you talk about it and the player's not budging (and you still want to play with him) then you can say, "Well, I remind you that I have access to the same rules you do. I don't want to hear 'it's not fair!' if this gets turned against you. We agreed?"
|
I think some people need to know that you can be powerful without being broken.
What this is is a way to teach the player or players a lesson. We have had this before where a player makes a broken character and in order to challenge him the DM has to throw something that would obliterate everyone else and that's not right. Whatever a player can do a DM can do as well. It's not fair that a player can wreck the game for everyone else.
anything the PCs do, I consider fair game for me to do (and vice versa, I don't do things the players can't do).
As a DM, you just plain get to roll more dice. This is a huge benefit. As the DM, you will hit more often, for more damage, then any of your players. Look at it this way, DM's are the Russians. They have way more men and tanks then anybody else, but they're maybe not rocking the most well-trained men and their equipment is about 60 years old on average. On the other hand, the PC's are kind of like NATO; they're not that many of 'em, but they're well-trained and they have all the newest gadgets.
It's quantity vs. quality. I'm not saying that the DM shouldn't use the same tools as the party, but he should do so sparingly.
My GM's are so evil that PC tactics is all we get, unless the monsters have low int.....
anything the PCs do, I consider fair game for me to do (and vice versa, I don't do things the players can't do).As a DM, you just plain get to roll more dice. This is a huge benefit. As the DM, you will hit more often, for more damage, then any of your players. Look at it this way, DM's are the Russians. They have way more men and tanks then anybody else, but they're maybe not rocking the most well-trained men and their equipment is about 60 years old on average. On the other hand, the PC's are kind of like NATO; they're not that many of 'em, but they're well-trained and they have all the newest gadgets.
It's quantity vs. quality. I'm not saying that the DM shouldn't use the same tools as the party, but he should do so sparingly.
I'd say the GMs are more like the Chinese. They have a billion men, modern equipment, up to date tactics and skills, and a nuclear arsenal.
Players are more like the A-Team, they have four guys, a lot of skill, and some good ways of scrounging up buses with steel plate welded on.
The reason the A-Team wins is because the writers are on their side. In this case, the writer is also the Chinese, so the writer writes them ways to win. That's what a good GM does, he arranges things so that his massive world is set up so the story unfolds in an entertaining way. If your approaching this as a GM vs Player thing, you've already screwed the pooch.
Which is why, as I said, anything done in game is good for both sides to do, because it's supposed to be entertainment and a good story. No good story ever has one side with a nuclear bomb and the other side with wooden sticks.
I use tactics that are reasonable depending on the type of enemy. For example, my Drow like to cast faerie fire and darkness and pick off the now visble targets with poisoned crossbow bolts while hurling slave fodder at them.
My assassins, if well trained, prefer to scout the party ahead of time, determine sleep patterns and where they store their armor, weapons and other supplies. They like to remove these and then coup de grace.
Less thoughtful creatures tend to pry off or destroy armor or weapons. A giant spider, for example, biting and clawing in an enraged flurry, is going to hit armor first, and do what it wants to do to flesh- Rip it apart.
Is it unfair? Well, that's kind of the point, isn't it? Most fights aren't honorable duels, and all that matters is who limps away in the end.
I wouldn't say they should be more important. But it isn't fun if you are the only PC that gets attacked. I once had a GM that said all of the opponents would attack the biggest threat first. So no one else ever got attacked until I died because I had plate armor and a great sword. I did NOT have a tank build so every tough fight was me on the edge of death and no one else even hurt unless there was an AoA spell used.
In my games, sentient creatures tend to follow this hierarchy :
1) That which I can actually hit.
2) That which hit me harder.
3) That which is proven most dangerous.
4) That which looks the most dangerous.
So, at the start of a fight, with nothing else known, they'll try for a spell caster first (in general), a big bad fighter type second, or whoever is closer finally. If they try to hit someone and fail twice in a row, they generally switch targets to someone else, hoping to take out the big bads allies, so they and their buddies can flank them.
Non-Sentient creatures (animals, vermin, mindless undead) tend to attack the closest living thing, only switching when something else makes itself more of a threat. Animals run away if they think they can't win, or get hurt too much too fast.
Question for anyone - who "wins" the war of the Deck of Critical Hits?
/my answer is "The DM", of course. My point is that he just plain gets to shake more often than the players. You can make any sort of analogy that you like, but it always comes down to that. The DM has tools galore, so much so that he doesn't need to rely on out-PCing (meaning giving lots of enemies lots of Class levels) the party.
No. Anything the PCs use, I can use. I would not throw something at them they cannot defeat, but everything else is fair game.
No. Anything the PCs use, I can use. I would not throw something at them they cannot defeat, but everything else is fair game.
My group regularly encounters baddies that we can't beat. We run and it's okay. The world is a dangerous place and like ol' Kenny says "you gotta know when to hold 'em /know when to fold 'em/ and know when to walk away"
/ yeah, I know I just quoted Kenny Rogers. Please don't make me feel any worse than I already do.
No. Anything the PCs use, I can use. I would not throw something at them they cannot defeat, but everything else is fair game.My group regularly encounters baddies that we can't beat. We run and it's okay. The world is a dangerous place and like ol' Kenny says "you gotta know when to hold 'em /know when to fold 'em/ and know when to walk away"
/ yeah, I know I just quoted Kenny Rogers. Please don't make me feel any worse than I already do.
I don't think you have much to worry about. It's not anyone considers you the coward of the county.
Question for anyone - who "wins" the war of the Deck of Critical Hits?
/my answer is "The DM", of course. My point is that he just plain gets to shake more often than the players. You can make any sort of analogy that you like, but it always comes down to that. The DM has tools galore, so much so that he doesn't need to rely on out-PCing (meaning giving lots of enemies lots of Class levels) the party.
This isn't necessarily true though. In my games the PCs tend to have better threat ranges and higher attack bonuses so they threaten and crit more often than the opposition. I use the Critical Hits and Fumble decks and we really haven't had any issues.
Hell, yes, use intelligent tactics, clever bluffs, nasty traps and wicked spells.
Yes, all the kinds of things the PCs do represent EFFECTIVE STRATEGIES... and unless your NPCs are all morons, the kinds of things they should be doing to the PCs.
There are things I avoid throwing at PCs... vorpal weapons and disintigrate spells come to mind. UNLESS the PCs start using them, at which point, after they slaughter a few monsters that way, word starts to get around, and pretty soon they are facing opponents trying to preempt the beheadings and turn the party into little dust piles.
But there is absolutely no reason to play your villains suboptimally, just because they're villains. Give the poor bastards a chance at victory: play them like capable, intelligent foes (again, unless they really are morons).
|
|
is it kind of unfair to use tricks that PCs use or CAN use against them?
for example... if you have a character that has basically broken the game with an insane build. would you say that countering with one or two very similar NPCs to attack the group would be unfair. even if that will almost guarantee a number of deaths?
to put it more simply. would fighting the group with mirror images of themselves be fair?
I am asking not really out of a sense of fairness but more out of a sence of balance. the PCs are SUPPOSED to be powerful. they are SUPPOSED to be able to work above and beyond the norm. so does that mean the PCs facing enemies equal to themselves is essentially too hard?
Can you give some example of the supposed level of broken insane build? If the build is actually breaking the rules, fix it and explain the facts to your player.
If that character is just very well build, and well played there is nothing wrong with that, but your enemies already have 1 advantage:
The only have to do their "thing" for a single combat. So you can stock up on potions of shield of faith with a high caster level, the same works for barkskin, mage armor (trolls + level 1 sorcerer with mage armor = fun) and other cheap buffs.
And when the time comes for your players to shine.... give them lots of everything an epic battle against scores of enemies (add buffers like bards to taste) should feel epic while every opponent is clearly outmatched by the PCs.
Since some insane builds can work from an early level 1d4 simulacrums of every player character should give the party a hint.
is it kind of unfair to use tricks that PCs use or CAN use against them?
for example... if you have a character that has basically broken the game with an insane build. would you say that countering with one or two very similar NPCs to attack the group would be unfair. even if that will almost guarantee a number of deaths?
to put it more simply. would fighting the group with mirror images of themselves be fair?
I am asking not really out of a sense of fairness but more out of a sence of balance. the PCs are SUPPOSED to be powerful. they are SUPPOSED to be able to work above and beyond the norm. so does that mean the PCs facing enemies equal to themselves is essentially too hard?
In my group it's usually the other way around. PCs often emulate the tactics that the NPCs are using to curbstomp them. It's a good way to introduce new players to the tactical side of the game, without overwhelming them. Teach 'em with the NPCs. Over time, you can slowly rev up your gears, and kick tactics into overdrive, and your PCs will be able to keep up.
Beware the 15th level wizards with the pet solars and terrasques my PCs, beware... σ_σ
|
No. Anything the PCs use, I can use. I would not throw something at them they cannot defeat, but everything else is fair game.My group regularly encounters baddies that we can't beat. We run and it's okay. The world is a dangerous place and like ol' Kenny says "you gotta know when to hold 'em /know when to fold 'em/ and know when to walk away"
/ yeah, I know I just quoted Kenny Rogers. Please don't make me feel any worse than I already do.
"Know when to walk away - Know when to RUN!"
Our GM is very clear about it. If we can do it, they can do it. The rules have to be the same rules. As for tactics, that's a different matter. The NPCs may or may not be clever enough to use a particular tactic. But you can bet that word of our tactics gets around, so intelligent foes will likely have information about things we have done before and make plans to counter them. Frankly, I am astonished that no one has yet tried to disarm my Zen Archer or sunder his bow.
In the case of actual tricks, i also go with the, well, you can rule it however you want, but the npc's get to use it to, however you rule it.
I remember back in 3.0, a player was arguing they could use hide in plain sight to hide in the shadow cast by a gold coin. I said I felt it was more intended to let you hide in something that would normally be big enough to hide you, as long as it was within range.
He really wanted to argue the point, to which i finally said, 'fine, but don't be surprised the next time you guys are running down a rock filled corridor and are suddenly ambushed by an army of ninja's'
Then the party voted reasonable size didn't sound so bad.
I have to say, I've never really seen an insane build that bothered me as a DM. But that being said, I thing anti-parties can be fun encounters, just keep in mind at what level the party might eventually defeat them, because fighting a formidable anti party usually means doubling the number of magic items the party has.
Technically, an anti party of equal level should mop the floor with most parties, because a lot of DM's forget that the anti party doesn't behave with the hive mind mentality of one person running all of them.
|
|
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.
Lot's of DM's don't find it fun when their campaign is wrecked because of PC's using broken combos.
I'm sorry but not every player is that nice little player and these forums are a testament to that. Some people just want to find the most broken, but legal, combo available to "win" the game.
That's just as bad as DM vs Player.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the original question:
Generally, I'd say, no. It's not unfair.
However: if you're using PC tricks against them to "teach them a lesson", or just to try to give them a beat-down, or make it into some sort of "GM vs Players" thing, I'd say you're way out of line.
So long as you're keeping in mind that the idea is for everyone to have fun, that it's supposed to be a cooperative effort at storytelling for the GM and players, and that the GM shouldn't just load the deck...
I do like to go with the presumption that many of the PC's enemies and adversaries are intelligent, competent, well-trained... and that means, yes, the tactics and tricks available to the PCs are also available to these capable enemies. If the PCs have been using particularly effective powers and tricks quite a bit-- then smart (recurring) enemies who have been studying the PCs will probably start copying some of the PC's most effective maneuvers (particularly if it looks like the PCs would be vulnerable to their own tricks)-- that's not unfair, that's just a smart enemy making good use of battlefield intelligence, and the PCs will have to deal with it.
Just don't overuse and abuse these things at your player's expense...
If they break out the cheesy trick once or twice during a campaign, while in a bad situation, then they get a pass.
If they break out the cheesy trick at least once a session, then they should expect to have the cheesy trick used on them.
Seconding a variation of this. The sorting criteria is the cheese factor. Possibly divided by the mookiness of the opposition.
Generally, yes, you should be able ot use PC tricks against them. HOWEVER, you have to heavily moderate and limit the extent to which you do this. Because ultimately, the PCs are supposed to win. If you used their tactics and builds against them in kind just as often and ruthlessly as they do to the NPCs...you'd inevitably get many many many TPKs. It isn't even about being sneaky or cheesy. Certain basic tactics that are 100% "as designed to be used" are just simply very nasty. Take for example sleep or hold person + an ally delaying his turn to coup de grace immediately afterwards. That's pretty basic planning right there, has all of 2 steps. I would not do that to the players.
Just as an example of the limits I'm talking about.