So basically I converted Marvels Hydra organization to a behind the scenes Cult of Tiamat. I have my players setting up to take place in a dragon war campaign (Church of Apsu vs Church of Dahak (tools of the cult of Tiamat).
Part of the hook I’m going to so is I’m going to have one of the heads of Tiamat (all level 15 npcs) show up and wreck the party but not kill them (of all the heads he enjoys toying with his victims over the long haul vs. flat out killing).
The issue is the players are level 4. I want the party to lose but not die, so I’m thinking as a control I’ll give the npc a merciful weapon so a non lethal weapon or kee him normal and either the local guards chase him off (party will be at a hamlet) or the envoy they are meeting show up in time to chase
Him off and fill them in to start the next chapter of the campaign.
My players are already used to being around “bigger fish” as long as its not direct combat example I have a Wizard tower in town in an island that is guarded by an adamantine golem. Yes it would kill them but they were told stay away from tower and the golem won’t engage. This would be the first time I’ve put them in an unbeatable encounter but serves purpose of reoccurring villain and pissing them off in character to want revenge.
Nonlethal damage turns into lethal damage once it surpasses the target's HP. Hence I'd rather cut the CR (to maybe 10), use a reflavored version of the Golden Legion's Stayed Blade feat or use temporarily neutralizing conditions instead of damage (paralysis, stun, cowering etc.).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not use one of the Head's minions? Avoiding a TPK from a CR=APL+4 threat is a lot more believable than from a CR=APL+11.
But I think that's really the key: you should just focus on what *feels* believable, so as to not break the suspension of disbelief too much.
If your goal is to start off a story with an enemy that will absolutely, 100% end them, then don't roll up stats or anything of that nature. Just telegraph, round after round, that they are in way, WAY over their heads.
And for that matter, I have a hard time swallowing the "I'll spare you because I'm eeevil and want you to suffer" trope in most cases.
What I would do is make the PC's present when the enemy strikes, but not the target. Then give them chances to escape in some fashion; they could retreat to an area that's defended by allies strong enough to fend off the enemy, or just hoof it into the woods, or hide under a pile of bodies.
Not making them the enemy's priority and making their survival the fruit of their own actions would make the whole situation more palatable.
But, in my experience, some players just can't take a hint. So yeah. Telegraph the crap out of things. I mean, part of the GM's job is to convey what the player's characters see, hear, remember, etc. So "you know this foe is beyond you" is totally fair game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should never run an encounter like this, it should be done using a narrative approach. If you need an encounter to end in a specific manner, don’t play it out. Players absolutely despise this and all you are going to do is to waste time and create resentment. Write out a couple of paragraphs on what happens and start the game at the point where the players actions can affect things.
You should never run an encounter like this, it should be done using a narrative approach. If you need an encounter to end in a specific manner, don’t play it out. Players absolutely despise this and all you are going to do is to waste time and create resentment. Write out a couple of paragraphs on what happens and start the game at the point where the players actions can affect things.
While I love the narrative approach I think one of my players is dense enough to not understand that he is over his head; last game using the golem example from above he ignores the warning several times and was literally a 5 foot step from then golems/tower before he was 1 shot. Finally he turned around as he saw the the golem react via moving. The fact a 5 foot movement is the only thing that saved his life when several local npcs and two fellow players were like leave the thing alone.
I really love the idea of a cohort or minion being there instead of a head.
Cause right now here are the heads:
Red head: Orc Mutagenic Mauler (Over all leader/warchief)
Green Head: Half Orc Summoner (eidolen is a huge serpent)
Black head: Half Dragon two weapon warrior Drow
White head: Human Antipaladin (rampager) (The one I was gonna send as the item he is after is the intelligent sword the party just found. It possesses the soul of his brother who he wants to torture for eternity)
Blue head: undecided as of right now
I’ve Already had the sword brief them (it talks) that it is to be delivered to the prince of a specific kingdom, with assurances the prince now king will pay well as he is a Apsu worshipper and his kingdom is the base for non dragon Apsu followers. So they have at least the history of the two bodies of water origin of the universe from the eyes of Dragons at least.
I’m leaning towards making the minions a mesmerist and mind control a player into handing off the blade after some banter but also after letting the players get their hits in by slaying several kobolds cultists. Or make him a cleric of Dahak as he is a tool of the cult cause I want to involve the church of Dahak but the real fight is gonna be Apsu vs. Tiamat but I can easily drop the Dahak aspect
Hm. Okay. So the players almost have to be the prime target, because they have the sword. That makes things a little tougher.
Maybe the encounter occurs right when they're making the pass-off? Like, they give to the prince, and then their enemy strikes?
Are there any established NPC's they somehow know for a fact they're not as strong as? You could do a little tournament with some mini games or jousting or something and show the players how tough the prince's captain of the guard is or whatever, then have the bad guys show up and take him down in a round.
Are the PC's Good? I think a great motivator to propel them into the story would be forcing them to retreat as the enemy kills their friends and/or innocent bystanders. A little frustration is a great tool.
Hm. Okay. So the players almost have to be the prime target, because they have the sword. That makes things a little tougher.
Maybe the encounter occurs right when they're making the pass-off? Like, they give to the prince, and then their enemy strikes?
Are there any established NPC's they somehow know for a fact they're not as strong as? You could do a little tournament with some mini games or jousting or something and show the players how tough the prince's captain of the guard is or whatever, then have the bad guys show up and take him down in a round.
Are the PC's Good? I think a great motivator to propel them into the story would be forcing them to retreat as the enemy kills their friends and/or innocent bystanders. A little frustration is a great tool.
Some good mostly neutral though. I like that though have some mini games something as a mask.
I think I’m gonna go with a mix of all. A head doesn’t show up but it’s talon (each head will have a cohort but caped at a 9 or 10) his will be Mesmerist or psychic working in the shadows. Introduce him under the disguise of a normal commoner. Only when the sword comes into play does he make his move as the games go on and he sends common foot soldiers to get interfere and slaughtered. Then he can hypnotize a player and steal it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should never run an encounter like this, it should be done using a narrative approach. If you need an encounter to end in a specific manner, don’t play it out. Players absolutely despise this and all you are going to do is to waste time and create resentment. Write out a couple of paragraphs on what happens and start the game at the point where the players actions can affect things.
So much this!
Encounters should only be played if the players are supposed to have a credible chance at winning. The moment you are planning to either make the enemy force so powerful that only through extremely absurd circumstances could the players hope to win, or that you will outright mcguffin the party's failure then you are describing something best done as a narrative piece.
It's far easier to get the player's buy in on such a thing, rather than pretend like they had any chance of winning.
In the example of the dense player who tried to test the limits, from his perspective (you didn't need to get combat rules involved) it could have played out as "As you approach, you start to hear the creature stir, the ground quakes as the mass of adamantine start to move. What do you do?"
If the player says "I attempt to flee" then you say the golem settles back down. If the player character attempts to stupidly continue then they die. Simple as that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should never run an encounter like this, it should be done using a narrative approach...Players absolutely despise this and all you are going to do is to waste time and create resentment...
Obviously, I disagree. I will conceed that doing this sort of things *well* is difficult, and that anything short of success can easily result in a very poor experience for everyone at the table. But that doesn't mean it's impossible or that it shouldn't ever be attempted.
So much this!
Encounters should only be played if the players are supposed to have a credible chance at winning. The moment you are planning to either make the enemy force so powerful that only through extremely absurd circumstances could the players hope to win, or that you will outright mcguffin the party's failure then you are describing something best done as a narrative piece.
An encounter is a question. The question isn't always "can the PC's kill all the bad guys?" Sometimes it's "can they escape with their lives?", "can they get through the forest undetected?" or "can they deliver the artifact to the temple in time?"
A strong narrative element is important in every encounter, though. Even if it's just fighting goblins. Once the question is answered, the encounter is over. No need to drag it out, regardless of what it is.
You should never run an encounter like this, it should be done using a narrative approach...Players absolutely despise this and all you are going to do is to waste time and create resentment...Obviously, I disagree. I will conceed that doing this sort of things *well* is difficult, and that anything short of success can easily result in a very poor experience for everyone at the table. But that doesn't mean it's impossible or that it shouldn't ever be attempted.
So much this!
Encounters should only be played if the players are supposed to have a credible chance at winning. The moment you are planning to either make the enemy force so powerful that only through extremely absurd circumstances could the players hope to win, or that you will outright mcguffin the party's failure then you are describing something best done as a narrative piece.
An encounter is a question. The question isn't always "can the PC's kill all the bad guys?" Sometimes it's "can they escape with their lives?", "can they get through the forest undetected?" or "can they deliver the artifact to the temple in time?"
A strong narrative element is important in every encounter, though. Even if it's just fighting goblins. Once the question is answered, the encounter is over. No need to drag it out, regardless of what it is.
Absolutely. I even asked my players at game zero what was their opinion on higher then CR threats being present, and gave them the example of you’re in a dinosaur swamp you run into many dinosaurs that are your level but your actions have attracted a T Rex. You physically can’t take it but you can hide or run. Their answer was “if we do something dumb and aggro a threat we can’t win we deserve it.”
The same party has already rolled 3 new characters due to an almost TPK from a Troll. They were level 3’s taking on a 5 (difficult encounter) the fighter decided to charge it and got one rounded it hit with all three attacks since it didn’t have to move and the rend killed it. Fighter even said that was my fault.
So I like the challenge with this group of can I engineer an losing encounter that is entertaining and drives them to get even. I asked here and I love the cohort being the thief vs. the hand proper. I know my players. They are the type that don’t want to auto win. If I roll 4 crits in a row (has happened) they want the dice to be critical hits not dropped to normal attacks. If they didn’t research properly they want to escape vs. GM magic they find weapons to even the fight. So I know they are ok with an encounter like this My only concern was ideas to wreck but not flat out kill. This thread gave plenty
You should never run an encounter like this, it should be done using a narrative approach...Players absolutely despise this and all you are going to do is to waste time and create resentment...Obviously, I disagree. I will conceed that doing this sort of things *well* is difficult, and that anything short of success can easily result in a very poor experience for everyone at the table. But that doesn't mean it's impossible or that it shouldn't ever be attempted.
So much this!
Encounters should only be played if the players are supposed to have a credible chance at winning. The moment you are planning to either make the enemy force so powerful that only through extremely absurd circumstances could the players hope to win, or that you will outright mcguffin the party's failure then you are describing something best done as a narrative piece.
An encounter is a question. The question isn't always "can the PC's kill all the bad guys?" Sometimes it's "can they escape with their lives?", "can they get through the forest undetected?" or "can they deliver the artifact to the temple in time?"
A strong narrative element is important in every encounter, though. Even if it's just fighting goblins. Once the question is answered, the encounter is over. No need to drag it out, regardless of what it is.
I agree with you, amend my statement to "Combat encounters should only..."
I was a little too loose with my terminology.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason I suggested the narrative approach is because the GM wants a specific outcome. He wants the players to lose, but not be killed. Those are the times that the narrative approach should be used. If you reversed the situation and the players were 15th level and the NPC’s were 4th the narrative approach would still be the best bet. It not about whether the players have a chance at beating their opponents, it’s about the GM controlling the outcome. The narrative approach should be used sparingly, but when used properly it moves the game forward and allows the players to focus on what is really important.
As to the player being too dense, this is where the GM needs to step in and take control. Let the players know that this is a plot device and not a combat encounter. Don’t ask the players what they are doing, don’t roll for initiative just tell the story.