ok so im getting pissed at the lack of tactics i see at my table. no team work, no communication. the fighter blocks the archer, the rogue refuses to flank, and the caster only uses AOE.
i understand that people should be able to RP as they want, and that fun is more important then anything else.
so here is my question, would throwing four level five pc class npc's against a disorgnized group of five level seven players be to rough? the characters im throwing at them are custom created, and very, very powerful. they will use military tactics and isolate weak links. they will be focusing on a singular target and focusing there resources at that target. also i do not metagame, these npcs will not magically know which characters suck and which ones can hold there own.
this is not a "the GM is mad, so the players pay" momment, its more of a "the GM tried to tell you guys not to piss that party of adventurers off, but you did it anyway" momment.
im expecting it to be a very brutal encounter, which my players know i dont pull punches, that i dont expect all of them to survive.
before anyone says "that is a bad thing for a gm to do", dont!!! they knew what they were getting into when they acted like A-holes to people who were minding there own busniess.
Question: How did they gain the ire of this adventuring group of NPCs?
not that its really relivent, but...
so in my custom world adventuring parties are very common. they usually compete for work when they are in the same area. well my player group decided to spread slander and lible about an NPC party using this abilityCharlatan
asked the player "what exactly do you say", well lets just say i cant post most of it. then i say "are you sure, you dont even know these people. i mean these guys could be level 20"
the entire party said "its not like they can do anything about it"
well,they have a bloodhound tracker in there group and we left off where the party was about the get ambushed by the NPCs.
early in the campaign i told them that there reputation will be a major factor in how you get work. if you have a bad reputation you may lose jobs and many people may stop associating with you. so the NPC party is in the mindset that they need to remove the problem so they can continue making money, a mentality many people have.
I do not see any problem with your propposed encounter. But for better opion i would like to konw more a bout the party composition, the Npcs and the encounter. Would the Npc havetactical advantage? woudl the Npc surprise the pary? etc etc
an ambush setting, a fighter phalanx fighter, with silence cast on him, a track focused rogue with invisibiliy, a magus (ouch i know) and a half-elf cleric negative energy smiter with a great sword (pharasmia).
|
Actually I think this is a good idea and let me tell you why:
First, the characters let their hubris make promises they can't keep. I think that repercussions are an important part of any gaming environment that is often overlooked.
Second, it allows you the opportunity to look into the underlying reasons why they aren't working as well as you might like them to as a team. Do you possess more teamwork experience than they do? Is their age a factor in the way their characters behave? Do they lack relevant real world experience regarding the tactics you'd like them to develop and use? Do they really like the characters they ended up with? If you can isolate what it is that is causing the disconnect with your players you can better address it in the future and plan for it.
Third, this presents an opportunity to showcase a group that uses their class abilities to the best advantage. Sometimes all it takes is the opportunity to see what these things like flanking and sneak attack damage can do to get the group hooked. It makes it a stronger example when you use lower level characters to whoop up on them because a lot of time players can get their characters to higher levels and then discount the threat that lower level opponents can present.
Considering all of the above I don't think I would let this result in a TPK. I'd want their characters to feel the sting of defeat, but I wouldn't want this to be something that completely derails the campaign that you've written.
Good luck with your group and consider talking with the group after the combat ends and go through what worked and what didn't with their characters and offer advice where you think that they could improve their tactics.
Don't kill them, at least not all of them. But definitely take (or break) a magic item or two. That'll mean war ;)
But seriously, as a warning: You can kill a PC. But as soon as you break a magic item, it's war.
Alternatively you can have the NPCs frame them or embarass them.
digeridork & Odraude
those are both very good points...
perhaps i will let their group alignment shift closer to good, then smash some stuff, and warn the PCs to correct their mistake or they comback and kill them all while they sleep.
This encounter is a CR 8 encounter (perhaps adding +1 for the tactics and the ambush), which (while difficult) should certainly be possible for a group of 7th-level PCs to handle.
Perhaps your PCs will even learn how to use tactics to their advantage by virtue of example (as long as they don't die in the process, that is).
How about using direct copies of the PC's and use them to attack the party using the tactics that you feel are lacking from the players.
If they cry foul when the PCs get a kicking you can just explain :D
How about using direct copies of the PC's and use them to attack the party using the tactics that you feel are lacking from the players.
If they cry foul when the PCs get a kicking you can just explain :D
Not exactly the best idea; the PC's would catch on too easily and still think "Wow, DM Raging at us for our brainless playstyle!"
Using a similar make-up of the group isn't a bad idea, since it still shows the concept of teamwork (and perhaps teamwork feats, if the DM decides to implement it). But keeping it too much the same as them, and it'll lead to a major argument.
The DM has to remember to treat this like a "Random Encounter," not a "Learn to use Tactics because I hate your ignorance of character mechanics" encounter, otherwise it leads to derailing the fun; and encounters being tough and taking their toll is important, because it directly shows the PC's how dire the situation is for their characters.
On the other hand, the Dm could easily suggest the tactics he thinks are missing at any given time...
The fighter says, I move to X.
DM "Are you sure? because that would block Ranger Y's shot"
Thief says "I move to square Q4" The DM could say, "Are you sure? You could just as easily move to square Q4 and get a flank for your sneak attack. OR to square P6 with an acrobatics roll of DC15."
Have your bad guys never clump up so the wizard's AOE spells never get more than one of the bad guys at a time. Of course you can't play as if the bad guys know that you have an AOE blaster until he throws those out there but most intelligent critters are nervous about bunching up because there is a possibility of encountering area blasters.. it's why most parties stagger anyways...
Run those type of "are you sure?" questions for a couple of weeks and then drop off... they either learned or didn't. If they are unaware of why this 5th level party kicked their butts
Did this work so far?