My experience is that having someone other than the DM run the monsters is that it's an excellent way to kill off PCs, because of a difference in objectives. As a DM, I want to make the fight fun for everyone, so I'll avoid un-fun combat tactics such as focus firing and obliterating one character, or stun locking people, or the like, whereas if I'm only running the monsters using Disintegrate on someone who's at 50 hp is "Score!".
I disagree that you have to nerf combatants to make it fun. My players want to be close to death at most encounters, they want to have to think tactically and approach things differently
My experience is that having someone other than the DM run the monsters is that it's an excellent way to kill off PCs, because of a difference in objectives. As a DM, I want to make the fight fun for everyone, so I'll avoid un-fun combat tactics such as focus firing and obliterating one character, or stun locking people, or the like, whereas if I'm only running the monsters using Disintegrate on someone who's at 50 hp is "Score!".
I disagree that you have to nerf combatants to make it fun. My players want to be close to death at most encounters, they want to have to think tactically and approach things differently
If you actually get PCs close to death in most encounters, you'll run a TPK every 5-10 encounters, unless you cheat.
It is a fine line between challenging the players, and killing them off. For a DM, that only comes with experience, and likely a few dead chars. But yes, I can think of nothing less enjoyable that being a player cake-walking over everything. Except being the player watching another player cake-walk through every encounter while your char sits on the sidelines not helping in the fight.
Not really.
Trick to not killing PC's by accident is to not use the "I'm going to try to kill the PC's" approach during the design of encounters. Create normal encounters based on setting, area or whatever is appropriate for the encounter and use the CR as designed, you will find that killing the PC's is really hard to do even if you execute really clever tactics. PC's are incredibly powerful compared to monsters, their advantage is huge, its like playing chess with just pawns, I'm sure every once in a while you might get that trick win, but your odds of winning a battle and actually killing PC's is slim to none.
Besides your players didn't come to the table to play a game that is rigged in their favor or is being manipulated by the DM to "look" like a challenge, but there was never any real danger. Players want the danger, they want to believe that your trying to kill them. That is what makes the victory worth something, that is what makes the game and that suspension of disbelief feel real. If you went to your players and told them that you pulled punches, you won't be a very popular DM, I promise you that. Its a rare player that wants to be coddled by the DM.
I think we are actually agreeing. Have a read again of my comment. It is boring for the players to easily blast through stuff. Having the very real chance that char may be killed is one of the keys to D&D. Now, let's face it. Once a group gets to 5th level, and someone pulls out the Revivify spell, the amount of encounters that can make chars "dead dead" drops significantly.
My experience is that having someone other than the DM run the monsters is that it's an excellent way to kill off PCs, because of a difference in objectives. As a DM, I want to make the fight fun for everyone, so I'll avoid un-fun combat tactics such as focus firing and obliterating one character, or stun locking people, or the like, whereas if I'm only running the monsters using Disintegrate on someone who's at 50 hp is "Score!".
I disagree that you have to nerf combatants to make it fun. My players want to be close to death at most encounters, they want to have to think tactically and approach things differently
If you actually get PCs close to death in most encounters, you'll run a TPK every 5-10 encounters, unless you cheat.
Well I do run them that tight on a regular basis, I don't cheat and my characters don't suffer TPKs, In fact current campaign is 2 years old no TPK's a handful of actual deaths, they might have 1-2 go unconscious most encounters, most of them come through it looking at hit points that are dangerously close to being out, but I have learnt to balance things so that it never ends up a TPK and I do not cheat, all dice rolls are open and about 50% of the time players have an idea of how many hit points a monster has. My monsters act naturally, and where there are more then one logical option I always let the dice decide who gets attacked.
What my party has learnt is how best to survive. I allow a house rule of Potions costing a bonus action to take which helps and the Tank has learnt the benefits of keeping a healthy supply of health potions on herself to play battlefield medic when needed. yes we will have non threatening encounters, generally to let players get a feel for new skills and abilities, or just to increase the tension (it is always funny watching your party hold onto the nuclear options convinced there is something really nasty coming next) but when I want to run a proper combat encounter, not just one for story or flavour, I have become very good at pitching it just right.
It is a fine line between challenging the players, and killing them off. For a DM, that only comes with experience, and likely a few dead chars. But yes, I can think of nothing less enjoyable that being a player cake-walking over everything. Except being the player watching another player cake-walk through every encounter while your char sits on the sidelines not helping in the fight.
Not really.
Trick to not killing PC's by accident is to not use the "I'm going to try to kill the PC's" approach during the design of encounters. Create normal encounters based on setting, area or whatever is appropriate for the encounter and use the CR as designed, you will find that killing the PC's is really hard to do even if you execute really clever tactics. PC's are incredibly powerful compared to monsters, their advantage is huge, its like playing chess with just pawns, I'm sure every once in a while you might get that trick win, but your odds of winning a battle and actually killing PC's is slim to none.
Besides your players didn't come to the table to play a game that is rigged in their favor or is being manipulated by the DM to "look" like a challenge, but there was never any real danger. Players want the danger, they want to believe that your trying to kill them. That is what makes the victory worth something, that is what makes the game and that suspension of disbelief feel real. If you went to your players and told them that you pulled punches, you won't be a very popular DM, I promise you that. Its a rare player that wants to be coddled by the DM.
I think we are actually agreeing. Have a read again of my comment. It is boring for the players to easily blast through stuff. Having the very real chance that char may be killed is one of the keys to D&D. Now, let's face it. Once a group gets to 5th level, and someone pulls out the Revivify spell, the amount of encounters that can make chars "dead dead" drops significantly.
Revivify in my games has a base 50% chance of failure, all battlefield resurrection spells do, a more formal ritual resurrection can be attempted out of combat, but again it is generally a skill based roll with players able to contribute to the ceremony and me shifting the DC based on what they do and the success.
It is a fine line between challenging the players, and killing them off. For a DM, that only comes with experience, and likely a few dead chars. But yes, I can think of nothing less enjoyable that being a player cake-walking over everything. Except being the player watching another player cake-walk through every encounter while your char sits on the sidelines not helping in the fight.
Not really.
Trick to not killing PC's by accident is to not use the "I'm going to try to kill the PC's" approach during the design of encounters. Create normal encounters based on setting, area or whatever is appropriate for the encounter and use the CR as designed, you will find that killing the PC's is really hard to do even if you execute really clever tactics. PC's are incredibly powerful compared to monsters, their advantage is huge, its like playing chess with just pawns, I'm sure every once in a while you might get that trick win, but your odds of winning a battle and actually killing PC's is slim to none.
The problem with this is that 'normal encounters' are not challenging. If you want to challenge the PCs, you can't use normal encounters (unless you just grind the PCs down with a long chain of them), because the defining feature of the challenging encounter is 'the PCs might lose'. And there's really no way to run encounters that the PCs might lose without having the PCs occasionally actually lose.
My experience is that having someone other than the DM run the monsters is that it's an excellent way to kill off PCs, because of a difference in objectives. As a DM, I want to make the fight fun for everyone, so I'll avoid un-fun combat tactics such as focus firing and obliterating one character, or stun locking people, or the like, whereas if I'm only running the monsters using Disintegrate on someone who's at 50 hp is "Score!".
I disagree that you have to nerf combatants to make it fun. My players want to be close to death at most encounters, they want to have to think tactically and approach things differently
If you actually get PCs close to death in most encounters, you'll run a TPK every 5-10 encounters, unless you cheat.
Well I do run them that tight on a regular basis, I don't cheat and my characters don't suffer TPKs, In fact current campaign is 2 years old no TPK's a handful of actual deaths, they might have 1-2 go unconscious most encounters, most of them come through it looking at hit points that are dangerously close to being out, but I have learnt to balance things so that it never ends up a TPK and I do not cheat, all dice rolls are open and about 50% of the time players have an idea of how many hit points a monster has.
If you haven't ended up in a TPK, either you're cheating or they aren't actually close to death. I don't consider '1-2 characters go unconscious' actually close to death.
My experience is that having someone other than the DM run the monsters is that it's an excellent way to kill off PCs, because of a difference in objectives. As a DM, I want to make the fight fun for everyone, so I'll avoid un-fun combat tactics such as focus firing and obliterating one character, or stun locking people, or the like, whereas if I'm only running the monsters using Disintegrate on someone who's at 50 hp is "Score!".
I disagree that you have to nerf combatants to make it fun. My players want to be close to death at most encounters, they want to have to think tactically and approach things differently
If you actually get PCs close to death in most encounters, you'll run a TPK every 5-10 encounters, unless you cheat.
Well I do run them that tight on a regular basis, I don't cheat and my characters don't suffer TPKs, In fact current campaign is 2 years old no TPK's a handful of actual deaths, they might have 1-2 go unconscious most encounters, most of them come through it looking at hit points that are dangerously close to being out, but I have learnt to balance things so that it never ends up a TPK and I do not cheat, all dice rolls are open and about 50% of the time players have an idea of how many hit points a monster has.
If you haven't ended up in a TPK, either you're cheating or they aren't actually close to death. I don't consider '1-2 characters go unconscious' actually close to death.
I consider it a good day if at least 30-40% of the party is unconscious at the end of the BBEG fight. I want the guys on the edge of their seats.
It is a fine line between challenging the players, and killing them off. For a DM, that only comes with experience, and likely a few dead chars. But yes, I can think of nothing less enjoyable that being a player cake-walking over everything. Except being the player watching another player cake-walk through every encounter while your char sits on the sidelines not helping in the fight.
Not really.
Trick to not killing PC's by accident is to not use the "I'm going to try to kill the PC's" approach during the design of encounters. Create normal encounters based on setting, area or whatever is appropriate for the encounter and use the CR as designed, you will find that killing the PC's is really hard to do even if you execute really clever tactics. PC's are incredibly powerful compared to monsters, their advantage is huge, its like playing chess with just pawns, I'm sure every once in a while you might get that trick win, but your odds of winning a battle and actually killing PC's is slim to none.
Besides your players didn't come to the table to play a game that is rigged in their favor or is being manipulated by the DM to "look" like a challenge, but there was never any real danger. Players want the danger, they want to believe that your trying to kill them. That is what makes the victory worth something, that is what makes the game and that suspension of disbelief feel real. If you went to your players and told them that you pulled punches, you won't be a very popular DM, I promise you that. Its a rare player that wants to be coddled by the DM.
You play chess with pawns only if you use, let's say, standard monsters.
Once you start using NPC's - even those listed in Monster Manual - the tables can turn because you have CR 11-12 "monsters" who are 18th level spellcasters.
You play chess with pawns only if you use, let's say, standard monsters.
Once you start using NPC's - even those listed in Monster Manual - the tables can turn because you have CR 11-12 "monsters" who are 18th level spellcasters.
It makes absolutely no difference. I know that there is a sentiment that it does, but if you use the CR system consider that for a group of say 4 characters of level 10 a solo a CR 11 (7200 XP) would be a hard encounter. 4 level 10 characters are going to utterly crush a CR11 anything, they would barely need to try, I don't care how clever of a GM you are.
Things get progressively easier as characters level up not harder. If you stick within rules of the CR system, killing your characters is almost impossible, again as long as you don't approach the design of the encounters with the "I'm going to kill the characters" approach. Obviously if you carefully construct a fight specifically to counter a parties strengths and expose their weaknesses that's a different story, but that is the trick to CR balancing - encounter balancing.
It is a bold claim that there is absolutely no difference between a brute monster that can basically attack in various ways and a 20 Int opponent who can nullify the party's spellcasters with one Globe of Invulnerability, rain down a Meteor Swarm on them or snuff one player immediately with a Power Word Kill or lock the party with an upcast Hold Person or something else that a level 18th spellcasting gives you.
Note that I didn't actually say that they don't have a chance, I just find it very hard to believe that they would need to "barely try". I am not saying it's a Queen (cause no legendary actions/resistances) but man, at least a Bishop? :)
You play chess with pawns only if you use, let's say, standard monsters.
Once you start using NPC's - even those listed in Monster Manual - the tables can turn because you have CR 11-12 "monsters" who are 18th level spellcasters.
It makes absolutely no difference. I know that there is a sentiment that it does, but if you use the CR system consider that for a group of say 4 characters of level 10 a solo a CR 11 (7200 XP) would be a hard encounter. 4 level 10 characters are going to utterly crush a CR11 anything, they would barely need to try, I don't care how clever of a GM you are.
Things get progressively easier as characters level up not harder. If you stick within rules of the CR system, killing your characters is almost impossible, again as long as you don't approach the design of the encounters with the "I'm going to kill the characters" approach. Obviously if you carefully construct a fight specifically to counter a parties strengths and expose their weaknesses that's a different story, but that is the trick to CR balancing - encounter balancing.
It is a bold claim that there is absolutely no difference between a brute monster that can basically attack in various ways and a 20 Int opponent who can nullify the party's spellcasters with one Globe of Invulnerability, rain down a Meteor Swarm on them or snuff one player immediately with a Power Word Kill or lock the party with an upcast Hold Person or something else that a level 18th spellcasting gives you.
Note that I didn't actually say that they don't have a chance, I just find it very hard to believe that they would need to "barely try".
A CR 18 creature has a 20,000 XP limit, your talking about a group of 4 adventures at 16-17th level and this counts as a "hard" encounter. At that level a Wizard has access to his own 9th level spells while melee characters are making several attacks ever round and have enough hit points to take multiple meteor swarms not to mention the insane heals.
I know the default for any argument is to go to extremes to prove a point but in D&D higher CR's don't become more deadly, they become less deadly. You are far more likely to wipe a party of 1st to 4th level characters then you are a 16th to 17th level, at that point the PC's are basically gods and death is a minor inconvenience at best.
I am not talking about a CR 18 creature.
I am talking about the fact that a CR 12 creature according to the MM is an 18th level spellcaster (Archmage, Archdruid etc.) Vajra Safahr, a Blackstaff of Waterdeep who has a Staff of Power on her and is 18th level spellcaster with 23 hit dice and magic resistance is CR 13.
I think we are actually agreeing. Have a read again of my comment. It is boring for the players to easily blast through stuff. Having the very real chance that char may be killed is one of the keys to D&D. Now, let's face it. Once a group gets to 5th level, and someone pulls out the Revivify spell, the amount of encounters that can make chars "dead dead" drops significantly.
Its supposed to. The reality of the system is that its specifically designed not to kill the characters, but that is why the DM should always be actively trying to kill the PC's. Again, they have all the advantage, the CR system favors them to win, they have all the special powers and combos, they have the power spells and effects. Everything about the game design favors the PC's to win fights and its up to the DM to do everything in his power within the confines of the CR system to kill PC's.
Yes, anything but a deadly encounter is very unlikely to kill a character, but you can give them a run for their money if you accept the paradigm shift that "hey my monsters are going to try to kill these bastards, I'm going to win this battle". You approach every encounter with that attitude and your players are going to get the sense that "hey.. this DM is really trying to kill us". That is the atmosphere that should be at the table in my opinion. The players should believe that the DM is actively trying to win the fights and kill them. I believe this is the intention of the CR system balancing.
Will you succeed? No.. not likely, as you point out there are just too many tools the PC's have to prevent their own deaths, the system is designed specifically to give them that advantage. But if you are pulling punches, you are a worried that killing the PC's will ruin your campaign and your coddling them.. then yeah, the players are going to become complacent, they are not going to buy into the game and it becomes Diablo where the players fear nothing.
The mistake most DM's do is that they do this throughout the campaign and then when a "big fight" comes up suddenly they decide.. ok now I'm really going to try to kill them cause "its the big fight". By then the players have already lost faith in your ability to be serious and when you actually do, that is when you get the TPK. Your players haven't learned how to actually fight a real battle so when you suddenly shift gears they are unprepared.
Being a good DM happens in 3 stages, in stage 2 all DM's are shit.
Stage 1 is "The New DM". This is when the DM is learning the game and he more or less follows the guidelines and rules of the system and tries to understand how everything works. At this stage most DM's are actually quite good.
Stage 2: "I know better". This is a stage all DM's eventually fall into, its the period when the DM suddenly thinks they are smarter then everyone that came before them and they start "doing it their way". This is when most DM's are absolute crap, they fiddle with the rules, they become frustrated with the players because "they don't understand their campaign".. Everytime you see a post on this forum about a DM complaining about his players, that is a DM in stage 2.
Stage 3: "Ok I get it now". Is where most DM's that survive stage 2 realize that the game is about their players, that they are the host of an evening of entertainment but that entertainment comes in the form of them creating real, believable challenges to the players and their characters. Its when you realize that most of the systems of D&D actually work, its when you realize what the game is really about (fighting monsters) and that all good stories revolve around that concept. You want to see what a DM in stage 3 looks like, listen to Matt Colville, he is a stage 3 DM with a youtube channel.
No offense to the poster as its not intended as an insult, but the poster is a stage 2 DM and this is a typical stage 2 DM problem.
I like your stages. Though I believe a lot of new DM's jump straight to stage 2, at least in the area of character building with crazy starting stats, which of course, further destroys the player/CR balance. That being said, I am actually diving deeper into Stage 2, where I am altering rules more often, but always to make the game MORE difficult for the players in encounters, or at least encounters where they may end up dead. The players have a copy of these House Rules of course.
I am talking about the fact that a CR 12 creature according to the MM is an 18th level spellcaster (Archmage, Archdruid etc.) Vajra Safahr, a Blackstaff of Waterdeep who has a Staff of Power on her and is 18th level spellcaster with 23 hit dice and magic resistance is CR 13.
Again I'm just going to point out that using edge cases and extremes is not really practical to a discussion like this. I could argue that having a part of nothing but Wizard PC's would likely also break the CR system.
Under normal circumstances not accounting for extremes and edge cases, this is a perfectly effective method. Their are of course always special case exceptions. For example you could argue a group of PC's at 10th level could all 18's on all ability scores with max level magic gear and pet dragons and that would also break the CR system, but that conversation would be equally meaningless.
Fighting an evil mage is hardly considered an extreme case and I hope you don't REALLY put an equal mark between that what can be actually found in MM and your "all 18 with all magic items with pet dragons" PCs.
It doesn't only affect level 10-11 players. Usually when spellcasting is involved, creatures have access to at least two spell levels higher than PCs at that level which may lead to dicey situations.
It's hardly an extreme - it's just the nature of magic in D&D. As soon as it gets involved, the situation complicates. Which is the only point I was trying to make, by the way. Fighting mages in D&D is not playing with pawns. It's not necessarily deadly in itself but it would be oversimplifying things to say that the PC can run through them without thinking.
I like your stages. Though I believe a lot of new DM's jump straight to stage 2, at least in the area of character building with crazy starting stats, which of course, further destroys the player/CR balance. That being said, I am actually diving deeper into Stage 2, where I am altering rules more often, but always to make the game MORE difficult for the players in encounters, or at least encounters where they may end up dead. The players have a copy of these House Rules of course.
Creating house rules doesn't necessarily make you a stage 2 DM. There is a difference between adapting the game to your setting or creating a specific atmosphere and trying to fix the game because you think your players are breaking it or that the game is broken. D&D does have ranges and their are even rules for those different ranges in the DMG. You can always tell if your in stage 2 because you will have a sense of friction with the rules and your players because you have an image in your head about what the game is "supposed to be about" and the game and your players get in the way of your vision. Stage 2 DM's live in their head, they are creating and playing the game in their mind and the game sessions, the players and the system are ruining it for them.
D&D is not some esoteric thing, it is exactly what it appears to be. Its a fantasy game about fighting monsters and telling stories of the PC's adventures. That's what it is. Your a stage 2 DM if you think its about something more and you try to will the game and your players into your version of it. The vast majority of players are going to come to your table to play D&D, not some weird concoction you invented. Becoming a stage 3 DM is about understanding and accepting that, recognizing what the game is for and why it brings players to the table. Its when you sort of make your peace with the whole thing and stop trying to change it and begin to just enjoy it for what it is, not what you wish it would be. Its why guys like Matt C. love D&D, they play it all the time for decades at a time and never wake up frustrated that the game is not what its supposed to be. You just kind of embrace the whole thing.
Creating things for the game, that is part of the joy of being a DM and to some degree that includes adding new rules or altering existing one, but doing that because you think it will be a fun alteration or make the game more interesting or challenging, those are standard DM things to do. Doing it because you think its a shit game and needs fixing, or because you think your players are abusing it. That sort of frustration comes from stage 2 DM's who just haven't made their peace with it yet.
This is why I use B/X rules when I run and play D&D. This is the rules system that works for me, I like it, its where I have made my peace. I have nothing against 5e as a rule system but it doesn't really speak to me as a GM, but when I do play it as a player, I embrace the experience, I play it as its intended to be played and I don't really like to play under a GM who is frustrated with the system or with the fact that we as players use it as its designed. I mean its kind of like, if you don't like the system don't run it.. if your going to change it, do it for the right reasons, but not out of frustration with it. Stage 2 is not a very pleasant place to be as a DM, its very frustrating. I spent a decade their believe me no one knows how crappy it is better than war veterans like me. I fought against the systems and players for longer then I care to admit.
I had a Stage 2 moment this morning. I am starting a new campaign tomorrow, with 3 players, all who DM their own games. (I play in 2 of them). I have made clear weeks ago that I am limiting the char creation and species/classes/subclasses to PHB and XGTE. I am STILL getting pushback from 2 of them about how "that limits the player's ability to create a char that they want to play" aka "We want to use the abomination that shall not be named rulesets". One guy wanted to be a Grappling Bugbear Warlock that shot Eldritch Blasts from a tattoo on his belly, calling it a HugBear. This is a grown man, not some 13 year old girl.
It does not bode well for the longevity of my game. But I digress. This is not the thread for these thoughts.
I like your stages. Though I believe a lot of new DM's jump straight to stage 2, at least in the area of character building with crazy starting stats, which of course, further destroys the player/CR balance. That being said, I am actually diving deeper into Stage 2, where I am altering rules more often, but always to make the game MORE difficult for the players in encounters, or at least encounters where they may end up dead. The players have a copy of these House Rules of course.
Creating house rules doesn't necessarily make you a stage 2 DM. There is a difference between adapting the game to your setting or creating a specific atmosphere and trying to fix the game because you think your players are breaking it or that the game is broken. D&D does have ranges and their are even rules for those different ranges in the DMG. You can always tell if your in stage 2 because you will have a sense of friction with the rules and your players because you have an image in your head about what the game is "supposed to be about" and the game and your players get in the way of your vision. Stage 2 DM's live in their head, they are creating and playing the game in their mind and the game sessions, the players and the system are ruining it for them.
D&D is not some esoteric thing, it is exactly what it appears to be. Its a fantasy game about fighting monsters and telling stories of the PC's adventures. That's what it is. Your a stage 2 DM if you think its about something more and you try to will the game and your players into your version of it. The vast majority of players are going to come to your table to play D&D, not some weird concoction you invented. Becoming a stage 3 DM is about understanding and accepting that, recognizing what the game is for and why it brings players to the table. Its when you sort of make your peace with the whole thing and stop trying to change it and begin to just enjoy it for what it is, not what you wish it would be. Its why guys like Matt C. love D&D, they play it all the time for decades at a time and never wake up frustrated that the game is not what its supposed to be. You just kind of embrace the whole thing.
Creating things for the game, that is part of the joy of being a DM and to some degree that includes adding new rules or altering existing one, but doing that because you think it will be a fun alteration or make the game more interesting or challenging, those are standard DM things to do. Doing it because you think its a shit game and needs fixing, or because you think your players are abusing it. That sort of frustration comes from stage 2 DM's who just haven't made their peace with it yet.
This is why I use B/X rules when I run and play D&D. This is the rules system that works for me, I like it, its where I have made my peace. I have nothing against 5e as a rule system but it doesn't really speak to me as a GM, but when I do play it as a player, I embrace the experience, I play it as its intended to be played and I don't really like to play under a GM who is frustrated with the system or with the fact that we as players use it as its designed. I mean its kind of like, if you don't like the system don't run it.. if your going to change it, do it for the right reasons, but not out of frustration with it. Stage 2 is not a very pleasant place to be as a DM, its very frustrating. I spent a decade their believe me no one knows how crappy it is better than war veterans like me. I fought against the systems and players for longer then I care to admit.
I had a Stage 2 moment this morning. I am starting a new campaign tomorrow, with 3 players, all who DM their own games. (I play in 2 of them). I have made clear weeks ago that I am limiting the char creation and species/classes/subclasses to PHB and XGTE. I am STILL getting pushback from 2 of them about how "that limits the player's ability to create a char that they want to play" aka "We want to use the abomination that shall not be named rulesets". One guy wanted to be a Grappling Bugbear Warlock that shot Eldritch Blasts from a tattoo on his belly, calling it a HugBear. This is a grown man, not some 13 year old girl.
It does not bode well for the longevity of my game. But I digress. This is not the thread for these thoughts.
One part of me wants to see this character in action whereas the other does not wish this annoyance on you the DM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I disagree that you have to nerf combatants to make it fun. My players want to be close to death at most encounters, they want to have to think tactically and approach things differently
If you actually get PCs close to death in most encounters, you'll run a TPK every 5-10 encounters, unless you cheat.
I think we are actually agreeing. Have a read again of my comment. It is boring for the players to easily blast through stuff. Having the very real chance that char may be killed is one of the keys to D&D. Now, let's face it. Once a group gets to 5th level, and someone pulls out the Revivify spell, the amount of encounters that can make chars "dead dead" drops significantly.
Well I do run them that tight on a regular basis, I don't cheat and my characters don't suffer TPKs, In fact current campaign is 2 years old no TPK's a handful of actual deaths, they might have 1-2 go unconscious most encounters, most of them come through it looking at hit points that are dangerously close to being out, but I have learnt to balance things so that it never ends up a TPK and I do not cheat, all dice rolls are open and about 50% of the time players have an idea of how many hit points a monster has. My monsters act naturally, and where there are more then one logical option I always let the dice decide who gets attacked.
What my party has learnt is how best to survive. I allow a house rule of Potions costing a bonus action to take which helps and the Tank has learnt the benefits of keeping a healthy supply of health potions on herself to play battlefield medic when needed. yes we will have non threatening encounters, generally to let players get a feel for new skills and abilities, or just to increase the tension (it is always funny watching your party hold onto the nuclear options convinced there is something really nasty coming next) but when I want to run a proper combat encounter, not just one for story or flavour, I have become very good at pitching it just right.
Revivify in my games has a base 50% chance of failure, all battlefield resurrection spells do, a more formal ritual resurrection can be attempted out of combat, but again it is generally a skill based roll with players able to contribute to the ceremony and me shifting the DC based on what they do and the success.
The problem with this is that 'normal encounters' are not challenging. If you want to challenge the PCs, you can't use normal encounters (unless you just grind the PCs down with a long chain of them), because the defining feature of the challenging encounter is 'the PCs might lose'. And there's really no way to run encounters that the PCs might lose without having the PCs occasionally actually lose.
If you haven't ended up in a TPK, either you're cheating or they aren't actually close to death. I don't consider '1-2 characters go unconscious' actually close to death.
I consider it a good day if at least 30-40% of the party is unconscious at the end of the BBEG fight. I want the guys on the edge of their seats.
You play chess with pawns only if you use, let's say, standard monsters.
Once you start using NPC's - even those listed in Monster Manual - the tables can turn because you have CR 11-12 "monsters" who are 18th level spellcasters.
It is a bold claim that there is absolutely no difference between a brute monster that can basically attack in various ways and a 20 Int opponent who can nullify the party's spellcasters with one Globe of Invulnerability, rain down a Meteor Swarm on them or snuff one player immediately with a Power Word Kill or lock the party with an upcast Hold Person or something else that a level 18th spellcasting gives you.
Note that I didn't actually say that they don't have a chance, I just find it very hard to believe that they would need to "barely try". I am not saying it's a Queen (cause no legendary actions/resistances) but man, at least a Bishop? :)
I am not talking about a CR 18 creature.
I am talking about the fact that a CR 12 creature according to the MM is an 18th level spellcaster (Archmage, Archdruid etc.) Vajra Safahr, a Blackstaff of Waterdeep who has a Staff of Power on her and is 18th level spellcaster with 23 hit dice and magic resistance is CR 13.
I like your stages. Though I believe a lot of new DM's jump straight to stage 2, at least in the area of character building with crazy starting stats, which of course, further destroys the player/CR balance. That being said, I am actually diving deeper into Stage 2, where I am altering rules more often, but always to make the game MORE difficult for the players in encounters, or at least encounters where they may end up dead. The players have a copy of these House Rules of course.
Fighting an evil mage is hardly considered an extreme case and I hope you don't REALLY put an equal mark between that what can be actually found in MM and your "all 18 with all magic items with pet dragons" PCs.
It doesn't only affect level 10-11 players. Usually when spellcasting is involved, creatures have access to at least two spell levels higher than PCs at that level which may lead to dicey situations.
It's hardly an extreme - it's just the nature of magic in D&D. As soon as it gets involved, the situation complicates. Which is the only point I was trying to make, by the way. Fighting mages in D&D is not playing with pawns. It's not necessarily deadly in itself but it would be oversimplifying things to say that the PC can run through them without thinking.
I had a Stage 2 moment this morning. I am starting a new campaign tomorrow, with 3 players, all who DM their own games. (I play in 2 of them). I have made clear weeks ago that I am limiting the char creation and species/classes/subclasses to PHB and XGTE. I am STILL getting pushback from 2 of them about how "that limits the player's ability to create a char that they want to play" aka "We want to use the abomination that shall not be named rulesets". One guy wanted to be a Grappling Bugbear Warlock that shot Eldritch Blasts from a tattoo on his belly, calling it a HugBear. This is a grown man, not some 13 year old girl.
It does not bode well for the longevity of my game. But I digress. This is not the thread for these thoughts.
One part of me wants to see this character in action whereas the other does not wish this annoyance on you the DM.