How to make it clear to players that a fight is beyond their capabilities?


Advice

101 to 130 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

@ the jeff:

thejeff wrote:

Why would you think that?

It's a big guy with a big sword and weird fashion sense. Not the first one they've met. There's a good chance they've got one in the party.

It's a medium guy able to wield a greatsword for larger creatures. It's clearly had creepy surgery performed on it. Fortunately, our fighter isn't the type you're suggesting. ^^

@Jadeite:

Jadeite wrote:
Optimizing opponents against the party is a pretty bad thing to do. It invalidates the players' choices.

Normally i'd agree, however in this case it's designed as a slow moving boogyman (boogy guard in this case), to set atmosphere. Along with its poor tactics of only attacking what it can sense and saying stealth checks can be used to avoid him, i'd say it survival has good chances, unless you assault it directly.

@Senko:

Senko wrote:
How about this then as you walk along you meet a bard singing "The man behind me is too strong for you, he can kill you all. He's 3.5 times your total party level and he's designed to fight you." Then they see a guy in armour come round the bend.

Lol, would be excellently silly.


GM Chyro wrote:
It's a medium guy able to wield a greatsword for larger creatures. It's clearly had creepy surgery performed on it. Fortunately, our fighter isn't the type you're suggesting. ^^

You mean like the iconic barbarian?

And the creepy surgery wasn't clear to me from the description. I'm also not sure I'd pick up in play that "large" was meant as a keyword.

There's also plenty of creepy stuff that isn't that tough. Without more, I wouldn't have run from it.


Ah, no not like an iconic barbarian.
Imagine the buster sword from Cloud in the old FF7, just a step or 2 bigger.

As for surgery, i can't imagine eyes sewn shut and lots of barbed wire stripped tight into your flesh as being a fashion statement.

You would if you didn't have your regular gear.
People don't go into an official public institution for the deranged, armed to the teeth. Regulations, only arms are held by the security staff.


GM Chyro wrote:

Ah, no not like an iconic barbarian.

Imagine the buster sword from Cloud in the old FF7, just a step or 2 bigger.

As for surgery, i can't imagine eyes sewn shut and lots of barbed wire stripped tight into your flesh as being a fashion statement.

You would if you didn't have your regular gear.
People don't go into an official public institution for the deranged, armed to the teeth. Regulations, only arms are held by the security staff.

Amiri, the PF barbarian Iconic uses a Large greatsword.

As I said, the rest was not clear from the original statement.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Mackenzie Kavanaugh wrote:


Nobody kills an APL +10 monster like Gaston!
Takes their stuff like Gaston!

Nobody does pushups like Gaston!


I wouldn't consult the dices in such situations (no Knowledge Check).

Instead I would try to explain the danger of this enemy by describing his actions, play with the player fear of the unknown and roleplay the enemy correct and show another route to the player. Also don't name it! If they don't know what it is, it's much more frighten. :)

E.g.: Big Bad Dragon - players shouldn't fight him, but get on a journey to get a magic spear which can kill him.

First I wouldn't show the dragon directly, I would tell of "something big flew over your had, the sun was darkend for some moments, after the sun warms your body again, the trees are still shaking from the storm which follows the creature."

Next show the remains of the enemies attacks:
"Near the road you see the remains of a large cart smashed against the mountains wall, like a toy."
"You get into town, you see severals destroyed houses only a few of them have still some roof. This will be a cold night for the town. The townhall, or at least what should be the townhall is still smoldering."

Next make the first hints for the "alternative route":
"Next to the remains of a small house sits an old man murmeling somthing, as you come close he frozes liek a statue and his eye gaze onto [Player name]: "And from the dark mountains comes the fiery death. No mortal soul could break his armor, no spell pass his will. Only the spark of a frozen heart will destroy it" after this the old man breaks together and didn't remember anything of it"

Next show that resistance is futile:
"You helped the towns people to cure the wounded and rebuild some roofs. At dawn a small group of wounded hunters get back to town. You hear whispers "they were 50 man, 50 of our finest warriors" ".. and the wizard, where is the wizard?"
The groups leader, a wounded battle-harded soldier spotted you and turn towards you "Where were you when the beast attacks? Where???? (he got a break down during it) We followed him into the moutnains, 50 man, armed and ready to fight... but our bolts simply bounce of his armor.. even Hasks magic bolts missed the creature.. he never missed one shot before... Where is Hask.. hi didn't make it... 50 man, only 5 still alive... Where were you????"

I think you see what I mean, setting the scene, make the enemy show bigger then he is and give a possible solution (and remove the imminent danger (if there is an imminent danger, players will fight to protect or loot (most are "good" in their hearth)))


Zhayne wrote:

Simple. Don't let them try it.

Don't call for initiative.
Don't bust out the battlemat and minis.
Don't touch the dice.
It's not a combat encounter, so don't frame it as one.

Right, this is the way.


I think that before the campaign starts, the GM should be clear that the party will encounter NPC's they can't defeat. Really, all the important things that vary from campaign to campaign should be discussed ahead of time.

However, once the party encounters something, I'm all for giving them every chance to recognize they can't beat it, but totally opposed to metagaming and telling them directly.

Some good ideas mentioned in the thread are to give enough info to anyone who makes a successful Knowledge check to let them know attacking is a bad idea, and also allowing a DC 5 Wisdom check for a character to have a feeling that fighting this opponent is a bad idea.

Another method, if there's anyone attached to a divinity or spirits in the party (Cleric, Oracle, Inquisitor, Warpriest, maybe Druid or Shaman...) is to have their character receive a divine warning to flee or negotiate or whatever.

It may seem like I'm splitting hairs, but one is an in character warning, where the other is metagaming. I like keeping it in character.


Tell them!

This scene is not meant to be a combat, but rather too..............


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I've had players roll Knowledge checks around 30ish, and when I tell them the name I add "With that check you get....one question."

That is kind of neat. I've never thought of putting the control in the hands of the players. Instead, I always struggle with "what should I tell them?" It feels kind of wrong to pick what I want them to know, so I usually give out a little more info than RAW. But by letting the players ask...

Yoink!


Anguish wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I've had players roll Knowledge checks around 30ish, and when I tell them the name I add "With that check you get....one question."

That is kind of neat. I've never thought of putting the control in the hands of the players. Instead, I always struggle with "what should I tell them?" It feels kind of wrong to pick what I want them to know, so I usually give out a little more info than RAW. But by letting the players ask...

Yoink!

It has it's own drawbacks. If the player knows things out of character about the monster, he has to decide whether to use that metagame knowledge to pick a question.

If he doesn't (or if he chooses not to use it) then it's likely he won't actually ask about any of the really useful things about the monster. Mostly you're just going to get: No it doesn't have any special defenses or attacks or whichever specific thing is asked for.
And not learn about the truly defining characteristic of the creature.

Learning that a basilisk has no defensive abilities, but not learning about it's gaze, doesn't strike me as useful.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Anguish wrote:
That is kind of neat. I've never thought of putting the control in the hands of the players. Instead, I always struggle with "what should I tell them?" It feels kind of wrong to pick what I want them to know, so I usually give out a little more info than RAW. But by letting the players ask...

That actually wasn't the gist of my post. If you roll a 35 on your Knowledge check, and get one question, then 35 only beat the DC by less than 5. DC = 5/10/15 plus CR. You should now be thinking "This creature has a CR greater than 35 minus either 6 or 11 or 16. So ranging from 19 to 29.

And players don't seem to pick up on this.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Anguish wrote:
That is kind of neat. I've never thought of putting the control in the hands of the players. Instead, I always struggle with "what should I tell them?" It feels kind of wrong to pick what I want them to know, so I usually give out a little more info than RAW. But by letting the players ask...

That actually wasn't the gist of my post. If you roll a 35 on your Knowledge check, and get one question, then 35 only beat the DC by less than 5. DC = 5/10/15 plus CR. You should now be thinking "This creature has a CR greater than 35 minus either 6 or 11 or 16. So ranging from 19 to 29.

And players don't seem to pick up on this.

To me, that's as metagame as just saying "It's a CR X creature", so whether I picked up on it or not, I'd try to avoid using it.

I'd rather just get a straight assessment of the encounter from the Knowledge check than have to back calculate it from the number of questions.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Which was the point of my post. Players won't or can't make that connection, so you have to tell them outright.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

Simple. Don't let them try it.

Don't call for initiative.
Don't bust out the battlemat and minis.
Don't touch the dice.
It's not a combat encounter, so don't frame it as one.

Right, this is the way.

I have played with DM who do things that way, and it is way to much DM fiat and railroad for my tastes, so definitely a case of YMMV.


I think you need to go cinematic as all heck in your description, and make sure the situation is one such that the players can observe the prospective combatants before making their decision to attack or not. Obviously, if the combat is one the players cannot win, having those players be ambushed is a bad idea.

The prospective combatant(s) need to casually demonstrate it's power level, such that a thinking player will realize this is something beyond what the players can match. There are too many possibilities to really give the perfect example, but many good examples have been provided above.


Saldiven wrote:

I think you need to go cinematic as all heck in your description, and make sure the situation is one such that the players can observe the prospective combatants before making their decision to attack or not. Obviously, if the combat is one the players cannot win, having those players be ambushed is a bad idea.

The prospective combatant(s) need to casually demonstrate it's power level, such that a thinking player will realize this is something beyond what the players can match. There are too many possibilities to really give the perfect example, but many good examples have been provided above.

But that means you can only use too powerful opponents in certain circumstances: They have to be overwhelmingly powerful and need a clear opportunity to show that power. You also have to make sure it's not a situation where heroic PCs will feel compelled to try to help.

That leaves out all sorts of possible cases and is likely to seem very contrived.

I think I prefer giving more information with Knowledge checks and allowing that to guide the players. It may seem like metagaming, but it doesn't really make sense that you can learn specific things about monsters, but not have a general idea about how dangerous they are.

Sczarni

thejeff wrote:
But that means you can only use too powerful opponents in certain circumstances: They have to be overwhelmingly powerful and need a clear opportunity to show that power.

Power is relative. A single ogre can be handled even by APL 1 party. A band of 15 ogres could not.


Malag wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But that means you can only use too powerful opponents in certain circumstances: They have to be overwhelmingly powerful and need a clear opportunity to show that power.
Power is relative. A single ogre can be handled even by APL 1 party. A band of 15 ogres could not.

True, but not really relevant.

3* Ogres would be more than the APL 1 party could handle, but they wouldn't be so overwhelming they can casually demonstrate they're out of reach.

*Exact number irrelevant. Sufficient that there exists a number such that the statement is true.


DrDeth wrote:


But you see- they didnt really "encounter" that Chimera. It's just a set piece. It's liek a cut scene between actual play in a video game.

No it isn't. It's an encounter that the PCs have the power to observe with relative safety or escalate as they choose. And that's just as much an encounter as walking into a dungeon chamber and surprising a group of orcs playing poker, walking down the road and seeing a merchant, or being ambushed by bandits. The chimera and the party are in the same place at the same time and may or may not come to blows - just like with any other encounter.

Sczarni

thejeff wrote:
Malag wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But that means you can only use too powerful opponents in certain circumstances: They have to be overwhelmingly powerful and need a clear opportunity to show that power.
Power is relative. A single ogre can be handled even by APL 1 party. A band of 15 ogres could not.

True, but not really relevant.

3* Ogres would be more than the APL 1 party could handle, but they wouldn't be so overwhelming they can casually demonstrate they're out of reach.

*Exact number irrelevant. Sufficient that there exists a number such that the statement is true.

What I am trying to say is, that you don't really need extra powerful opponents solo opponents in some cases. A party could try to lure few ogres away and handle them alone while avoiding the rest of the band which is busy ransacking. Even corner cases like putting single powerful creature against party can work by putting extra NPC help for example which lowers the encounter value drastically. It would require careful encounter planning though.

The power is there. It's just reversed completely.


Malag wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Malag wrote:
thejeff wrote:
But that means you can only use too powerful opponents in certain circumstances: They have to be overwhelmingly powerful and need a clear opportunity to show that power.
Power is relative. A single ogre can be handled even by APL 1 party. A band of 15 ogres could not.

True, but not really relevant.

3* Ogres would be more than the APL 1 party could handle, but they wouldn't be so overwhelming they can casually demonstrate they're out of reach.

*Exact number irrelevant. Sufficient that there exists a number such that the statement is true.

What I am trying to say is, that you don't really need extra powerful opponents solo opponents in some cases. A party could try to lure few ogres away and handle them alone while avoiding the rest of the band which is busy ransacking. Even corner cases like putting single powerful creature against party can work by putting extra NPC help for example which lowers the encounter value drastically. It would require careful encounter planning though.

The power is there. It's just reversed completely.

Which is different than: "I'm trying to make it clear this encounter is too powerful for you."

You're correct that powerful groups can sometimes be handled by splitting them up, though it's often risky. (In this case, for example, A single ogre would be a hard encounter. If you lure two away it's above Epic. Even one at a time, you're not going to make it through 15 and if they all come after you, you'll die if you can't escape.)

You're posing an entirely different problem than the thing I was objecting to. From "How to warn the players this isn't a combat encounter for them" to "How to handle combat encounters that appear to be beyond you."


TL;DR ;P
But..I did have some thoughts in a similar manner to the title topic and came up with a dastardly display of how game rules stop working at all and the encounter becomming mostly a storytelling shown of getting thrown around..with a clear comment that "if i made this thing roll damage instead id have to think how to introduce a new party into the campaign very fast"
That was with Carrion crown in mind in case my party started getting too close to some CR5+ incorporeals before getting past their own level 1s.

Of course if you can pick an encounter you can just take one with obvious resistances to most of what the party has at the moment.

Sczarni

thejeff wrote:

Which is different than: "I'm trying to make it clear this encounter is too powerful for you."

You're correct that powerful groups can sometimes be handled by splitting them up, though it's often risky. (In this case, for example, A single ogre would be a hard encounter. If you lure two away it's above Epic. Even one at a time, you're not going to make it through 15 and if they all come after you, you'll die if you can't escape.)

You're posing an entirely different problem than the thing I was objecting to. From "How to warn the players this isn't a combat encounter for them" to "How to handle combat encounters that appear to be beyond you."

You are right. I am going way of to another set of problems but in any case, these encounters should always have some "catch" in them or alternative escape option. Cinematics can often be misunderstood.

Grand Lodge

"Okay, let me get all the dice I'll need for this guy..."

And then proceed to take out several matched pairs of d20 and damage die for all their natural attacks.


a lot of time i use dead body count as hints.

recent experience in my sandboxy game:

party gets quest to clear ogres that attack caravans.
party goes and investigates:
finds that ogres have a lair in a cave east of the marches.
party goes to swamps.
party investigates and finds ogres have left the east caves and are now on the west part of the swamp.
they also find that they were ousted from their original place by "something"

quest is still: clear the ogres (which the party new was in west end now)
party goes to east side because... players!

party finds 7 dead bodies along the way, heal/survival/knowledges identify the corpses as a romaing pack of catoblepas (cr12 each, 2 packs of 3/4 of them) party level 7.

"ehh guys? i think we should really, REALLY, go west and not east"


DrDeth wrote:
Zhayne wrote:

Simple. Don't let them try it.

Don't call for initiative.
Don't bust out the battlemat and minis.
Don't touch the dice.
It's not a combat encounter, so don't frame it as one.

Right, this is the way.

I 3rd that opinion.

And it is largely up to the GM to do this since the game is rather focused on combat between the PC and... most everything else.

I mean, why do they have Stat Blocs and Loot if we're not meant to kill them and take their treasure?

:)


Matrix Dragon wrote:

First, you should make it clear before the campaign starts that the fights won't all be tailor made for the party. They may run into something that WILL kill them if they fight it head on.

This.

Also, on a similar note, do NOT make unbeatable foes interfere with the main quest. There is a world of difference between stumbling across a random encounter on your way to fight the Orc king and save the princess from being sacrificed that is just WAY too big and dangerous to fight and the Orc king himself being too big to fight. We've never had too much trouble running away from side fights.

However, if the whole quest is to rescue the princess and stop the orc king... and there is no way to do it... THOSE are the times we do not run. If we flee, 1) The gal dies. 2)Evil wins. 3) The quest fails.

My good guys are in the vein of 'save the princess at all costs or die trying.' As heroes, there will be times that 'running' results in worse consequences than 'dying'.

As a DM you have to make sure to present the situation with that in mind. Let the players know that 1) there are fights that are too powerful.... and 2) it's 'OK' to run away.


phantom1592 wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:

First, you should make it clear before the campaign starts that the fights won't all be tailor made for the party. They may run into something that WILL kill them if they fight it head on.

This.

Also, on a similar note, do NOT make unbeatable foes interfere with the main quest. There is a world of difference between stumbling across a random encounter on your way to fight the Orc king and save the princess from being sacrificed that is just WAY too big and dangerous to fight and the Orc king himself being too big to fight. We've never had too much trouble running away from side fights.

However, if the whole quest is to rescue the princess and stop the orc king... and there is no way to do it... THOSE are the times we do not run. If we flee, 1) The gal dies. 2)Evil wins. 3) The quest fails.

My good guys are in the vein of 'save the princess at all costs or die trying.' As heroes, there will be times that 'running' results in worse consequences than 'dying'.

As a DM you have to make sure to present the situation with that in mind. Let the players know that 1) there are fights that are too powerful.... and 2) it's 'OK' to run away.

Or make it clear that there are ways other than a head-on assault to get what you want. Really clear. Like blindingly obviously clear. Players always either come up with an incredibly clever way around the encounter you knew they had to fight or miss the obvious way to avoid the killer fight you thought they'd bypass.

A variation on the Three Clue rule.

But basically, I agree. You can really only use the "This encounter is too tough, stay away from it" in cases where the PCs/players don't care about it. If they're emotionally invested in the stakes, expecting them to just avoid the encounter is a bad idea. Worst case, repeated use leads them to avoid emotional investment in anything in the game.


thejeff wrote:
GM Chyro wrote:

Ah, no not like an iconic barbarian.

Imagine the buster sword from Cloud in the old FF7, just a step or 2 bigger.

As for surgery, i can't imagine eyes sewn shut and lots of barbed wire stripped tight into your flesh as being a fashion statement.

You would if you didn't have your regular gear.
People don't go into an official public institution for the deranged, armed to the teeth. Regulations, only arms are held by the security staff.

Amiri, the PF barbarian Iconic uses a Large greatsword.

As I said, the rest was not clear from the original statement.

No. You are incorrect. Amiri, the Pathfinder Iconic Barbarian, uses a large sized bastard sword.

She can do this because she has Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), allowing her to treat it as a one-handed weapon, which in turn allows her to use a size larger one as a two-handed weapon (at a -2 penalty to attack rolls).

101 to 130 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / How to make it clear to players that a fight is beyond their capabilities? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice
Druid Gear