So after my last session, it looks like one of my players, who is a level 4 Ranger Horizon walker, is going to try to solo a Hobgoblin Warlord. Is that encounter going to kill him unless if I nerf the warlord somewhat? I'm always down to redirect the whole party, which I could pretty easily, but he seemed kinda hyped about the battle...
there have been many film moments where a protagonist faces the enemy solo and early in the piece and is soundly defeated but not killed because reasons. Such reasons include: insignificant challenge, humour, no need to demonstrate the firepower of this fully functional battlestation. Such moments may look like enemy using only one hand or otherwise being completely dismissive, only to knockout the protagonist with one hit. in other words, you have the option of disabling, subduing, and capturing the adventurer for whatever purposes fit the storyline.
A level 4 character solo against a CR 6 monster is way too difficult. You should nerf the warlord a lot, or make the player understand that the party is the force of D&D.
I wouldn't nerf the fight, I wouldn't nerf monsters in general. It is what it is and its up to the players to decide how they want to fight / approach the situation. If they are unprepared, or too weak, then they'll get crushed. Going out of your way to make the opponent weaker to accommodate the player will give the player the wrong message. It'll teach bad behavior and wrong expectations as well going into future conflicts. They'll see that you will let them win no matter what they do. That there is no real lose situation. That there is no real repercussion and drama and challenge to overcome.
If your ranger thinks he can handle the fight vs a hobgoblin warlord... let him fight it. Maybe the player does have something up his sleeve you didn't expect. If not beat the shit out of the ranger. Have the hobgoblins take him prisoner so the other players have to get him free.
Don't go our of your way to kill players, don't go out of your way to let your players win. Create a situation that seems "real" and plausible. Then its up to the players how they want to deal with it...or fail trying.
Single person fights sounds great on paper but rarely work well in practice. Only two people at the table is engaged and the rest is trying to stay enthusiastic for the 30 Minutes the fight takes. Also with a 1-1 fight there is little tactics and movement so the DM and the single player is just rolling dice so it’s not that great for them either.
So if possible I would try to modify the story so that all get engaged.
What everyone here says is true, though the solution is situational. I'll give you an example using what's going to come up on my session this next Saturday:
I have a player who is going to end up in a 1v1 fight, I have 6 players at the table. I decided almost a month ago that this fight was going to happen because of story, plot, and world development. The player is going to lose, there's almost no way around it since there's around a 4 level difference between the player and the opponent. Because of the large gap between levels the fight should only take a couple rounds. During that time the players will be able to do anything they want to try to assist, unfortunately the antagonist will have safeguards up to make the entire party feel helpless as well. When the player loses, there will be another NPC who will step in and "save" the player, but only after the antagonist has a chance to monologue.
---
JCAUDM pointed out the cinematic aspect, which is what this fight is about. A cinematic moment where a new antagonist is brought forth and exerts a power that blatantly shows the players are not going to be able to fight him. What is referred to in story telling as an inciting incident, causing the players to unite against a common threat.
filcat's option: if I wanted the player to succeed I'd either reduce the challenge by "nerfing" the antagonist or I'd give the player some tool that would give them some advantage or ability which would allow them to win.
Giblx's suggestion: I'm not modifying the antagonist because the fight is not supposed to end in the players favor.
As DnDSwede warns: I'm giving all of the players something to do while the fight happens. This gives it even more of the cinematic feel, the players feeling the same overwhelming failure as the player in the fight.
---
There's nothing wrong with giving a player a losing fight, whether it's scripted or not. The idea is to make sure that even if it was a dumb idea, the player(s) don't feel like they were taken advantage of. Give them a chance to run, give them story development, and make sure they realize the danger they are in.
So if the warlord has previously been engaged in battle, and wounded. But seeing a Half elf Ranger (who is at full HP) decides that he's going to fight the Ranger 1v1 because reasons, lets also assume that Hobgoblin is at quarter health so 30ish HP vs 97 max. And the Ranger has the ability to deal a max of 20 damage on His turn. would that level the playing field? This is all Hypothetical, the party might just side step this whole encounter, but I want to be prepared if it happens.
Sounds as if you either haven't read our responses, or simply don't care for what has been said. You're hellbound on a specific way to do it. So why ask for help if you ignore what has already been shared?
Sounds as if you either haven't read our responses, or simply don't care for what has been said. You're hellbound on a specific way to do it. So why ask for help if you ignore what has already been shared?
That's one way to see it. The other is that maybe the OP is trying to find a middle ground. Keeping the path that was already envisioned but compromising by "nerfing" the encounter by, in the OP's words, "leveling the playing field". This would fall in line with what filcat was suggesting.
So if the warlord has previously been engaged in battle, and wounded. But seeing a Half elf Ranger (who is at full HP) decides that he's going to fight the Ranger 1v1 because reasons, lets also assume that Hobgoblin is at quarter health so 30ish HP vs 97 max. And the Ranger has the ability to deal a max of 20 damage on His turn. would that level the playing field? This is all Hypothetical, the party might just side step this whole encounter, but I want to be prepared if it happens.
Simply dropping the Hobgoblin by half HP could make the fight tilt in the Ranger's favor. There's a tip that I noticed none of us has mentioned either. Once you have an idea of how you might want to do this you should run a mock combat. You should have a basic idea of how your player approaches combat, to run it as close to what you feel the combat would look like, that'll give you a base line of how challenging it will be for the player.
I haven't read all of the other posts, so sorry if I'm repeating something.
But what I would do is have the other players fight against the Warlord's hordes. Each horde that is defeated, the Hobgoblin's "morale" goes down, which makes him easier to defeat. That way it feels like it's straight out of a movie.
Sounds as if you either haven't read our responses, or simply don't care for what has been said. You're hellbound on a specific way to do it. So why ask for help if you ignore what has already been shared?
Thank you for all the comments, I greatly appreciate all the opinions posted!
I’m not really decided on anything, I just want to make sure I’ve got my options covered, and nerfing the fight a bit seemed to be a valid option. There’s a lot of ways to nerf a fight, but the balance of making something “Possible” but not a complete push over is a fine line. Hobgoblin lore states that they have an extreme hatred for elves of all kind, and that they will stop at nothing, even if it puts their strategy in jeopardy, to slay an elf. So I thought a warlord demanding single combat with a half elf seemed like a reasonable extension of the Hobgoblins logic. This Particular Warlord. has been involved in a large scale battle, and hasn’t had time to “Heal”. So overall I thought from a story perspective this encounter made a lot of sense...
D&D is about having fun, and I believe that letting your players do epic things is part of that fun. And an epic battle with a Hobgoblin Warlord on top of a mountain in a Lightning storm is both epic and fun.
Once again, thank you all for your comments and opinions!
A note of caution - fun doesn’t come from finding out that you’ve been handed easy mode because you made an unwise choice. I would consider that to be detrimental, as it would encourage more dumb choices, knowing that no decision will be unpunished.
A note of caution - fun doesn’t come from finding out that you’ve been handed easy mode because you made an unwise choice. I would consider that to be detrimental, as it would encourage more dumb choices, knowing that no decision will be unpunished.
Very true! And duly noted, I don’t mean to make anything a cake walk. And poor decision making isn’t something that I take lightly. Actions have consequences.
The Hobgoblin Warlord's effective CR is 5 in this encounter, as presumably he will be unable to use his Martial Advantage ability since this is a one-on-one fight. If you then halve the warlord's hit points (48), that brings him down to a CR 4. It would be lower, but the warlord retains advantages from a very high AC and a high attack bonus. If you go to one-third the normal hit points (32), then we're talking CR 3.
At 32 HP, this fight becomes winnable for your ranger if he gets to go first and has decent DPR, especially if he makes use of Inspiration or some other means to gain advantage on attack rolls.
At 48 HP, the odds are pretty stacked against the ranger. Short of some very smart tactics or lucky rolls (both hits or critical hits on his part and misses on the warlord's part), he will probably lose.
What I didn't see others mention above is that in one-on-one fights like this, it can help to bend the rules a little bit and offer some tactical options that aren't normally available. You could make it easier to do things like disarm or shove a creature, which could add an extra dimension. Also, the terrain is very important here, as obstructions could provide valuable cover to the PC to help protect against the warlord's very high attack bonus. I'd suggest you consider some cinematic duels as a source of inspiration and see if there's anything you can add to spice up this encounter so they're not just standing next to each other trading blows.
The Hobgoblin Warlord's effective CR is 5 in this encounter, as presumably he will be unable to use his Martial Advantage ability since this is a one-on-one fight. If you then halve the warlord's hit points (48), that brings him down to a CR 4. It would be lower, but the warlord retains advantages from a very high AC and a high attack bonus. If you go to one-third the normal hit points (32), then we're talking CR 3.
My concern with this approach is that we are encouraging players to feel like they can never lose. Of course they can. I can see this working with some players but others will use this to their advantage or will come to expect that they cannot loose.
I don't disagree Martos. I was just crunching the math as far as the CR goes, if the OP wants to make this a winnable fight. But if he'd rather teach the PC a lesson about picking his battles, then that's fine by me. Personally, I probably wouldn't go so far as to the kill the PC if he loses (perhaps the warlord would rather he live in shame), but other DMs may disagree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So after my last session, it looks like one of my players, who is a level 4 Ranger Horizon walker, is going to try to solo a Hobgoblin Warlord. Is that encounter going to kill him unless if I nerf the warlord somewhat? I'm always down to redirect the whole party, which I could pretty easily, but he seemed kinda hyped about the battle...
there have been many film moments where a protagonist faces the enemy solo and early in the piece and is soundly defeated but not killed because reasons. Such reasons include: insignificant challenge, humour, no need to demonstrate the firepower of this fully functional battlestation. Such moments may look like enemy using only one hand or otherwise being completely dismissive, only to knockout the protagonist with one hit. in other words, you have the option of disabling, subduing, and capturing the adventurer for whatever purposes fit the storyline.
A level 4 character solo against a CR 6 monster is way too difficult. You should nerf the warlord a lot, or make the player understand that the party is the force of D&D.
I wouldn't nerf the fight, I wouldn't nerf monsters in general. It is what it is and its up to the players to decide how they want to fight / approach the situation. If they are unprepared, or too weak, then they'll get crushed. Going out of your way to make the opponent weaker to accommodate the player will give the player the wrong message. It'll teach bad behavior and wrong expectations as well going into future conflicts. They'll see that you will let them win no matter what they do. That there is no real lose situation. That there is no real repercussion and drama and challenge to overcome.
If your ranger thinks he can handle the fight vs a hobgoblin warlord... let him fight it. Maybe the player does have something up his sleeve you didn't expect. If not beat the shit out of the ranger. Have the hobgoblins take him prisoner so the other players have to get him free.
Don't go our of your way to kill players, don't go out of your way to let your players win. Create a situation that seems "real" and plausible. Then its up to the players how they want to deal with it...or fail trying.
Single person fights sounds great on paper but rarely work well in practice. Only two people at the table is engaged and the rest is trying to stay enthusiastic for the 30 Minutes the fight takes. Also with a 1-1 fight there is little tactics and movement so the DM and the single player is just rolling dice so it’s not that great for them either.
So if possible I would try to modify the story so that all get engaged.
What everyone here says is true, though the solution is situational. I'll give you an example using what's going to come up on my session this next Saturday:
I have a player who is going to end up in a 1v1 fight, I have 6 players at the table. I decided almost a month ago that this fight was going to happen because of story, plot, and world development. The player is going to lose, there's almost no way around it since there's around a 4 level difference between the player and the opponent. Because of the large gap between levels the fight should only take a couple rounds. During that time the players will be able to do anything they want to try to assist, unfortunately the antagonist will have safeguards up to make the entire party feel helpless as well. When the player loses, there will be another NPC who will step in and "save" the player, but only after the antagonist has a chance to monologue.
---
JCAUDM pointed out the cinematic aspect, which is what this fight is about. A cinematic moment where a new antagonist is brought forth and exerts a power that blatantly shows the players are not going to be able to fight him. What is referred to in story telling as an inciting incident, causing the players to unite against a common threat.
filcat's option: if I wanted the player to succeed I'd either reduce the challenge by "nerfing" the antagonist or I'd give the player some tool that would give them some advantage or ability which would allow them to win.
Giblx's suggestion: I'm not modifying the antagonist because the fight is not supposed to end in the players favor.
As DnDSwede warns: I'm giving all of the players something to do while the fight happens. This gives it even more of the cinematic feel, the players feeling the same overwhelming failure as the player in the fight.
---
There's nothing wrong with giving a player a losing fight, whether it's scripted or not. The idea is to make sure that even if it was a dumb idea, the player(s) don't feel like they were taken advantage of. Give them a chance to run, give them story development, and make sure they realize the danger they are in.
So if the warlord has previously been engaged in battle, and wounded. But seeing a Half elf Ranger (who is at full HP) decides that he's going to fight the Ranger 1v1 because reasons, lets also assume that Hobgoblin is at quarter health so 30ish HP vs 97 max. And the Ranger has the ability to deal a max of 20 damage on His turn. would that level the playing field? This is all Hypothetical, the party might just side step this whole encounter, but I want to be prepared if it happens.
Sounds as if you either haven't read our responses, or simply don't care for what has been said. You're hellbound on a specific way to do it. So why ask for help if you ignore what has already been shared?
That's one way to see it. The other is that maybe the OP is trying to find a middle ground. Keeping the path that was already envisioned but compromising by "nerfing" the encounter by, in the OP's words, "leveling the playing field". This would fall in line with what filcat was suggesting.
Simply dropping the Hobgoblin by half HP could make the fight tilt in the Ranger's favor. There's a tip that I noticed none of us has mentioned either. Once you have an idea of how you might want to do this you should run a mock combat. You should have a basic idea of how your player approaches combat, to run it as close to what you feel the combat would look like, that'll give you a base line of how challenging it will be for the player.
I haven't read all of the other posts, so sorry if I'm repeating something.
But what I would do is have the other players fight against the Warlord's hordes. Each horde that is defeated, the Hobgoblin's "morale" goes down, which makes him easier to defeat. That way it feels like it's straight out of a movie.
Published Subclasses
Thank you for all the comments, I greatly appreciate all the opinions posted!
I’m not really decided on anything, I just want to make sure I’ve got my options covered, and nerfing the fight a bit seemed to be a valid option. There’s a lot of ways to nerf a fight, but the balance of making something “Possible” but not a complete push over is a fine line. Hobgoblin lore states that they have an extreme hatred for elves of all kind, and that they will stop at nothing, even if it puts their strategy in jeopardy, to slay an elf. So I thought a warlord demanding single combat with a half elf seemed like a reasonable extension of the Hobgoblins logic. This Particular Warlord. has been involved in a large scale battle, and hasn’t had time to “Heal”. So overall I thought from a story perspective this encounter made a lot of sense...
D&D is about having fun, and I believe that letting your players do epic things is part of that fun. And an epic battle with a Hobgoblin Warlord on top of a mountain in a Lightning storm is both epic and fun.
Once again, thank you all for your comments and opinions!
A note of caution - fun doesn’t come from finding out that you’ve been handed easy mode because you made an unwise choice. I would consider that to be detrimental, as it would encourage more dumb choices, knowing that no decision will be unpunished.
Very true! And duly noted, I don’t mean to make anything a cake walk. And poor decision making isn’t something that I take lightly. Actions have consequences.
The Hobgoblin Warlord's effective CR is 5 in this encounter, as presumably he will be unable to use his Martial Advantage ability since this is a one-on-one fight. If you then halve the warlord's hit points (48), that brings him down to a CR 4. It would be lower, but the warlord retains advantages from a very high AC and a high attack bonus. If you go to one-third the normal hit points (32), then we're talking CR 3.
At 32 HP, this fight becomes winnable for your ranger if he gets to go first and has decent DPR, especially if he makes use of Inspiration or some other means to gain advantage on attack rolls.
At 48 HP, the odds are pretty stacked against the ranger. Short of some very smart tactics or lucky rolls (both hits or critical hits on his part and misses on the warlord's part), he will probably lose.
What I didn't see others mention above is that in one-on-one fights like this, it can help to bend the rules a little bit and offer some tactical options that aren't normally available. You could make it easier to do things like disarm or shove a creature, which could add an extra dimension. Also, the terrain is very important here, as obstructions could provide valuable cover to the PC to help protect against the warlord's very high attack bonus. I'd suggest you consider some cinematic duels as a source of inspiration and see if there's anything you can add to spice up this encounter so they're not just standing next to each other trading blows.
My concern with this approach is that we are encouraging players to feel like they can never lose. Of course they can. I can see this working with some players but others will use this to their advantage or will come to expect that they cannot loose.
I don't disagree Martos. I was just crunching the math as far as the CR goes, if the OP wants to make this a winnable fight. But if he'd rather teach the PC a lesson about picking his battles, then that's fine by me. Personally, I probably wouldn't go so far as to the kill the PC if he loses (perhaps the warlord would rather he live in shame), but other DMs may disagree.