Help with a complex encounter. (D&D)

[Keilious]

<img border="0" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v88/Atlimar/Emotes/Emotneutral.gif" align="left">I've been DMing for a little less than a year now (I think, might be more), my campaign is running very well, players are gaining more interest in it rather than becoming bored, mainly because I've introduced some rather complex battles recently (Mechanus opens up a horde of possibilities, heh).
The problem I've always had is that the players are hopeless when it comes to tactics, the Evoker is the only one who really thinks about combat (makes sense I guess, INT 19), so I've been tossing relatively high CR monsters at them alot of the time.

For the next session I've got a very interesting encounter planned out: The players confront a level 5 party, which will probably beat the living daylights out of them using a mass of tactics.

The first and most obvious part is magic, I put in 2 wizards since that opens up lots of possible situations.
Next I added a ranger (plot related) for damage.
A dwarven fighter for defence.
A rogue to explain the ammount of traps.
Cleric for healing (duh).
And a few low level fodder.

Okay, now the players are level 10, so you might think that the level 5's don't stand a chance against the Dwarven Defender's CR 30 or so.
Well that's where my cunning ploy begins...

Maneuver 1: Before the battle begins, the evil party is warned (probably) that someone has infiltrated their base, the wizard casts Haste on everyone, and Mirror Image, moving out of the room and behind a wall while his mirror images stay in the room next to the walls (can't be further than 5ft away, remember?).
When the players enter the room, he sees them through slits in the walls and casts slow on them all.

Maneuver 2: The dwarven fighter alone runs towards the players, and is immediatly surrounded and takes a whole load of attacks in defense + expertise.
Now the wizard casts... Benign Transposition! The Ranger switches places with the dwarf, comences a whirlwind attack, tripping each player with his flail, then getting lots of free attacks against them. The rogue can rush in and sneak attack at this point.
The second wizard casts Benign Transposition, returning the ranger to a safe position.

Maneuver 3: The rogue runs towards a player, tumbles past them.
The cleric and one wizard move forward so that the battle looks like so:
[C][O][W]
[O][P][O]
[O][R][O]

The Cleric trips the player.
Now the ranger charges between the cleric and wizard, getting monstrous bonuses: + 5BAB + 2STR + 2(Flanking) + 2(Charge) + 2 (aid another from cleric) + 2 (aid another from wizard) + 2 (aid another from rogue) + 4 (prone) = + 21! Beating the best player fighter!

Maneuver 4: The room is riddled with traps, one of which is a deadly poisonous gas trigger. (DC: 18, Init: 1d6 Con, Sec: 1d6 Con).
The wizard casts Wind Wall, keeping the evil party from harm while the players either take massive con damage or hold their breaths. Fighters move into the width of the room and buckle down in complete defence to try to make the party run out of breath somehow (working on this one).

So here's my question: The Evoker player will definately stay behind, tossing a fireball or two forward, probably ending the entire encounter before it begins, how should I counter this? What Anti-magic field options are there?

[Daelin]

Since you did not specify, I will assume this is 3.5.

Atlimar Zero

The first and most obvious part is magic, I put in 2 wizards since that opens up lots of possible situations.
Next I added a ranger (plot related) for damage.
A dwarven fighter for defence.
A rogue to explain the ammount of traps.
Cleric for healing (duh).
And a few low level fodder.

Maneuver 1:

OK. Seems solid, but the durations of spells will impact how this plays out.

Atlimar Zero

Maneuver 2: The dwarven fighter alone runs towards the players, and is immediatly surrounded and takes a whole load of attacks in defense + expertise.
Now the wizard casts... Benign Transposition! The Ranger switches places with the dwarf, comences a whirlwind attack, tripping each player with his flail, then getting lots of free attacks against them. The rogue can rush in and sneak attack at this point.
The second wizard casts Benign Transposition, returning the ranger to a safe position.

Here's where I'm starting to have issues. First...this is a 5th level enemy party, you say, yet you have a ranger5 with the following feats:

Dodge
Mobility
Spring Attack
Combat Expertise
Whirlwind Attack
Improved Trip

... Umm. I'm thinking not. Maybe if there's a ranger variant I don't know about that gives you three of those feats (and specifically Whirlwind Attack and Spring Attack between 4 and 5) as class abilities. If this is doable, I'm not seeing it. The BAB and feat requirements are fairly restrictive.

Rebuild the ranger to something reasonable, or change him to a fighter...and I don't even think it's doable with a fighter before level 6.

Next, I do not know this Benign Transposition spell. What is the source book that it is from? Finally, you're counting on a very favorable initiative count to pull this off, or you waste time refocusing or holding actions to get it right.

Atlimar Zero

Maneuver 3: The rogue runs towards a player, tumbles past them.
The cleric and one wizard move forward so that the battle looks like so:
[C][O][W]
[O][P][O]
[O][R][O]

The Cleric trips the player.
Now the ranger charges between the cleric and wizard, getting monstrous bonuses: + 5BAB + 2STR + 2(Flanking) + 2(Charge) + 2 (aid another from cleric) + 2 (aid another from wizard) + 2 (aid another from rogue) + 4 (prone) = + 21! Beating the best player fighter!

So...three of your enemies do nothing for a round except try to hit AC 10 in order to grant a total of +6 to the ranger. Guess you gotta do what you gotta do. I hope the cleric has improved trip, or he'll get smacked. I hope that the timing goes off right, or that wizard is going to get hurt. Bad. With (4+(5*2.5)+10) 26 hp on average (with an above average Con), he'll only be able to take one or two hits before he falls.

Atlimar Zero

Maneuver 4: The room is riddled with traps, one of which is a deadly poisonous gas trigger. (DC: 18, Init: 1d6 Con, Sec: 1d6 Con).
The wizard casts Wind Wall, keeping the evil party from harm while the players either take massive con damage or hold their breaths. Fighters move into the width of the room and buckle down in complete defence to try to make the party run out of breath somehow (working on this one).

What's to stop the party from just backing out of the room and waiting out the trap?

Atlimar Zero

So here's my question: The Evoker player will definately stay behind, tossing a fireball or two forward, probably ending the entire encounter before it begins, how should I counter this? What Anti-magic field options are there?

If you are intent on this encounter, try to blind the evoker, or have your cleric drop a silence on the area of the room that the evoker's party will enter from. Forcing him to guess where he can cast from will give you a couple of rounds. You can also have the dwarven fighter ready an action to fire a bow at the guy in robes when he starts to wave his hands and chant in that freaky voice. It's not a given, but it does force concentration checks if you hit.

At any rate, as described, I would be tempted to walk out of the game. This is an encounter specifically designed against the players, and you haven't provided (us, at least) and reason to believe that such focused tactics are justified in-game. But that's a problem with asking for help in a forum...it's always going to look like you're out to get your players. smile

[Threx]

He wants help with tactics, who knows what the justification is? He does, thats about it. I would be guessing it would be a sample of how tactics can kick major a**, and a lesson to the PCs about using them. And I have a feeling most DMs are out to get their players. I mean, I always am* :p I have planned out a couple anti-party encounters, and usually they (the PCs) win.

As for this particular encounter, I cant really comment, as there is alot of D&D specific lingo being tossed around, and a few key elements, I'm not sure how they work.

Generally, I use an ambush and illusions to mess up PCs. They never disbelieve for some reason.

* But I never make it impossable. Most major and some minor encounters end with 1-2PCs in the 0-9HP range, and everyone else within 10-20% health, with few spells left over. Without fudging, or altering the encounter, if you ask me, thats skill wink

[Daelin]

Threx

He wants help with tactics, who knows what the justification is? He does, thats about it. I would be guessing it would be a sample of how tactics can kick major a**, and a lesson to the PCs about using them. And I have a feeling most DMs are out to get their players. I mean, I always am* :p I have planned out a couple anti-party encounters, and usually they (the PCs) win.

Forgive me, but that's a juvenile attitude, regardless of what your age might be. Any tabletop RPG is, by definition, a social encounter, and if you, as the DM, are out to get the other players then you are putting forth your desires over those of everyone else at the table.

There is a time to be selfish, but it shouldn't be when 5 or more people get together to have fun. If your players tolerate it, then so be it. If they enjoy it, more power to you. I do not. I am currently in a game where the DM is out to get us, and it is damned frustrating, because no matter what you do, you cannot make the 'right' choices in a situation. If the DM wants the party to fail skill check xyz, they will. If the DM wants there to be a fight now, there will be. Success or failure is at the will of the DM, and has no relevance to my own skills, abilities, or insights. And to any who may read this, spare yourself the embarrassment of comparing any RPG to real life in a response.

[Threx]

Daelin

Forgive me, but that's a juvenile attitude, regardless of what your age might be. Any tabletop RPG is, by definition, a social encounter, and if you, as the DM, are out to get the other players then you are putting forth your desires over those of everyone else at the table.

There is a time to be selfish, but it shouldn't be when 5 or more people get together to have fun. If your players tolerate it, then so be it. If they enjoy it, more power to you. I do not. I am currently in a game where the DM is out to get us, and it is damned frustrating, because no matter what you do, you cannot make the 'right' choices in a situation. If the DM wants the party to fail skill check xyz, they will. If the DM wants there to be a fight now, there will be. Success or failure is at the will of the DM, and has no relevance to my own skills, abilities, or insights. And to any who may read this, spare yourself the embarrassment of comparing any RPG to real life in a response.

My players enjoy what I throw at them, and my one friend boasts my ability to bring the PCs to near death without TPKs. As for when I'm gunning for my PCs, I rarely ever make a situation where they cannot win. I will however put in scenarios where they cannot win in combat, or they cannot win in parlay. But never both. Unless, I am out to capture or make them run away. If you play at my table, you will learn that you cannot win every situation. There will be times when running away or surrendering will be the only option. I have no problem killing PCs to show that aswell.

Lets put it this way, if I say something around the lines of "Ok, I rolled a 28 to hit you, and you take 15 points of damage. Your move spaceman." Should you happen to only have an AC of 16, and 21HP, its very obvious this fight isnt for right now, or for a direct conflict. At this point, you have three options. Run away, parlay, surrender. as the fourth option will kill you, attack. You could say, surrender, and wait for a moment of oppertunity then attack, depending you could get away with it. Who knows? But if you die, there will be no fudging, and no sympathy. Some players I know do not like having no win situations, unfortunatly they are a major tool I use, and they loose in that aspect. But they also realize I will not go out of my way to kill them, and if they retreat, odds are I wont press the attack, unless I know they can still win, or I wish to have them captured.

[Daelin]

Threx

Some players I know do not like having no win situations, unfortunatly they are a major tool I use, and they loose in that aspect. But they also realize I will not go out of my way to kill them, and if they retreat, odds are I wont press the attack, unless I know they can still win, or I wish to have them captured.

This is wandering off-topic, and should be continued via PM if you wish to respond further. However, there is a distinct difference between a 'Guys, why are you walking into the Den of UltraEvil(tm) at level 1' and 'No..no. You don't get a diplomacy check...you've just gotta fight the Bullywugs.'

Those both represent extremes, and are merely representative. If situation 1 comes up, then the DM is generally justified in giving the players no chance. Stupidity needs to be rewarded. That was not what I was talking about in my previous post, nor is it what I understood you to be talking about in yours. There are definate implications in 'being out to get' someone, as opposed to punishing them for being dense.

[Keilious]

<img border="0" src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v88/Atlimar/Emotes/Emotneutral.gif" align="left">Thank you for your insightful comments, Daelin.
Firstly, yes it is 3.5, I should have mentioned that.
Secondly, I did realise the problem with the ranger, I'll change that to a fighter, thanks for pointing that out.
Benign Transposition is from the minatures handbook.
I am counting on the evil party being aware that the players are coming a little while before they enter, however if the players play out the dungeon well, the they'll have the advantage.
Next I realise that the wizard is in danger, but if I can hit and disarm or severely damage the player then that should be okay.
As for the trap, that was a pretty big mistake, thanks for that. ^^;
Solved fairly easily by locking the door, it will probably be bashed down, but it should do.

Okay, my problem is this:
The druid and evoker player don't take chances, they stay back, the druid occassionally attacking in melee when she is low on spells. I have no problem with these two, the other three bother me: The Dwarven Defender, The Fighter/Rogue and the Dragon Rider.
These are the kind of players who keep fighting on 2hp when the ECL is equal to their party level or higher and they know it, it annoys me to no end having to fudge so many dice rolls to keep everyone alive and the plot ongoing.
The main problem they have is that they never work as a team, individually they see bonuses and move into position (ie. Oh! If I stood here I would be flanking).
There has never been a battle they have run away from or surrendered in.
Even when they met a Xorn at level 2 which they were meant to talk to, they attacked it... no signs of aggression on the Xorn's side...

Before they enter this dungeon they will be warned about what they will be facing by some NPC I have yet to invent, namely they'll be told what classes they'll be fighting and the weapons of two of them (The now fighter and rogue), told that they're very organised and cunning.

I'm certainly not going for a TPK, if one person dies then I'm just going subdual on everyone else.
It is very unlikely that they'll lose this encounter, they might not even enter it if they carry out the conversation in the beginning of it properly.

[Threx]

Quote:

These are the kind of players who keep fighting on 2hp when the ECL is equal to their party level or higher and they know it, it annoys me to no end having to fudge so many dice rolls to keep everyone alive and the plot ongoing.

I have a suggestion, you may not like it, hell you wont like it. But you must not fudge. Do not fear to kill one or two of them. Even if you have raise easily accessable, so they can keep their characters, they ahve just lost a level. Lesson learned: Dying sucks, the DM means business. They don't stop fighting because there is no reason to stop fighting because you fudge your rolls and they win. Why bother rolling at all?

[Harbinger of Pandamonium]

Threx

Quote:

These are the kind of players who keep fighting on 2hp when the ECL is equal to their party level or higher and they know it, it annoys me to no end having to fudge so many dice rolls to keep everyone alive and the plot ongoing.

I have a suggestion, you may not like it, hell you wont like it. But you must not fudge. Do not fear to kill one or two of them. Even if you have raise easily accessable, so they can keep their characters, they ahve just lost a level. Lesson learned: Dying sucks, the DM means business. They don't stop fighting because there is no reason to stop fighting because you fudge your rolls and they win. Why bother rolling at all?

Indeed. Why keep your players alive through their own stupidity?

Personally I don't like the kind of encounter you're describing, because you've created it specifically to hit your players.

[Keilious]

Threx

Quote:

These are the kind of players who keep fighting on 2hp when the ECL is equal to their party level or higher and they know it, it annoys me to no end having to fudge so many dice rolls to keep everyone alive and the plot ongoing.

I have a suggestion, you may not like it, hell you wont like it. But you must not fudge. Do not fear to kill one or two of them. Even if you have raise easily accessable, so they can keep their characters, they ahve just lost a level. Lesson learned: Dying sucks, the DM means business. They don't stop fighting because there is no reason to stop fighting because you fudge your rolls and they win. Why bother rolling at all?

Yah, there was my main problem, raise was inaccessable up till now, so that's why it doesn't really matter if this encounter kills one or two.

@Phoenix315: The campaign is very plot orientated, having a character die and not be raised messes around with alot of things (seeing as the players are too lazy to create a complex character background and I have to do most of it for them).
Yes well, I need to design encounters against the players...
When they were in Nirvana they took down an inevitable on the first and only round. Before its initiative came along. sweatdrop

[Threx]

Question for the people who commented "I wouldnt play at your table, your designing encounters to chalenge your PCs."

Whos party should I be making encounters for? I'm all ears. sweatdrop

[Keilious]

Threx

Question for the people who commented "I wouldnt play at your table, your designing encounters to chalenge your PCs."

Whos party should I be making encounters for? I'm all ears. sweatdrop

Exactly! The party has had enough easy kills (such as the Inevitable situation above), they need to have a challenge.

[Harbinger of Pandamonium]

Threx

Question for the people who commented "I wouldnt play at your table, your designing encounters to chalenge your PCs."

Whos party should I be making encounters for? I'm all ears. sweatdrop

No, I said you're designing this encounter specifically to take out your PC's. I said nothing about challenging them. When you're looking at specific counters to how your PC's act on a random encounter, I think something is wrong.


@Atlimar Zero- That's all well and good, but if you're fudging constantly to keep them alive they're abusing your playing style, inadvertently or not.

[Threx]

Phoenix315

Threx

Question for the people who commented "I wouldnt play at your table, your designing encounters to chalenge your PCs."

Whos party should I be making encounters for? I'm all ears. sweatdrop

No, I said you're designing this encounter specifically to take out your PC's. I said nothing about challenging them. When you're looking at specific counters to how your PC's act on a random encounter, I think something is wrong.


@Atlimar Zero- That's all well and good, but if you're fudging constantly to keep them alive they're abusing your playing style, inadvertently or not.

But when I (or any DM worth his salt) designs an encounter specifically agaisnt the PCs, its almost never to kill them. Its to make them work hard for their money. Extreme example:
Im the DM, the party is five monks who all use fists.
I have to make an end boss fight. I could either make a group of 5 NPCs who specialize in stopping spells, and disarming weapons. Or I can make a group who are resistant to bludgening.

Why the hell would I choose the first option over the second?

[Keilious]

Phoenix315

Threx

Question for the people who commented "I wouldnt play at your table, your designing encounters to chalenge your PCs."

Whos party should I be making encounters for? I'm all ears. sweatdrop

No, I said you're designing this encounter specifically to take out your PC's. I said nothing about challenging them. When you're looking at specific counters to how your PC's act on a random encounter, I think something is wrong.


@Atlimar Zero- That's all well and good, but if you're fudging constantly to keep them alive they're abusing your playing style, inadvertently or not.

Not fudging constantly, just avoiding hitting players on low HP and lowering damage...

But this couldn't possibly kill them, their opponents are HALF their level, if they can't win the battle then they need to get a wake-up call through this.