Look, they're the main characters of the story, they're supposed to look badass sometimes..
Plus it's just far more fun when players get to actually use the character building decisions they made. I think it's much more fun to base enemy actions on what they can reasonably perceive. If someone has innate fire resistance, let the enemy sorcerer cast burning hands on them once to figure that out. If it's a fabled and well-known Robe of Fire Resistance that they're wearing, any half-intelligent spellcaster will know not to use fire spells on them, but the goblins with flaming arrows might not be so savvy.
It's honestly really funny to me how frequently some DMs forget basic writing principles. If something is set-up, either by yourself or your players, you should find a way to pay it off. It's a really lame story if your monk has developed an immunity to poison and it never comes up a single time. Chekov's gun was made to be fired!
Your monk can catch arrows now? Don’t stop shooting them. Shoot them more.
Monk - burns reaction catching arrow
Dm - "and now they turn the balista on you"
Monk - O_O
DM- "Catch this, monk boy"
Even better, just have that inscribed on the ballista bolt/arrow/the flying tree.
I'd like to imagine the monk catching the ballista projectile and getting whisked away by it
In a comedically Looney Toons style
I meant to reply to you with this
https://lemmy.world/comment/19940495
he was a pretty high level at the time and had some magical tattoos as well It was a fun game.
I once let our monk deflect a ballista bolt because he said he was going to do the redirecting with his flying kick instead of his hands, so I had him roll acrobatics with disadvantage since his reaction time would have to be through the roof to pull it off.
rolled two nat 20's. Not only did that ballista go sailing right back at the machine that fired it, it utterly destroyed it and the three dudes manning it, because after kicking half a telephone pole back at your enemies, you've earned the right to walk away from an explosion without looking at it.
I also made him roll to see if he hurt himself landing and he did, so he had to deal with a bad ankle the rest of the encounter (-3 dex, I am a jealous god)
Yes! Shoot your Monk is standard GM advice! they took those powers to look badass, just give them one useless archer per combat and they will shine! And throw arrows!
You also don't need to make every enemy an idiot like a videogame. Monk catches an arrow? Archer wastes a turn figuring that out, calls it out to his teammates start of next turn and targets someone else.
A green dragon, depending on your source books, should be more than smart enough to notice its breath attack didn't work on someone and change tactics.
It doesn't work in every situation, like with enemies that shouldn't be smart enough to figure it out, but there's some great room for fun reminding your players that the enemies aren't always braindead.
It also can add an extra layer to combat. Take out the commander that's noticing this stuff to prevent it. Kill the archer before he can call out the monk caught his arrow, so another archer wastes a turn.
I managed to work up an immunity to Poison, so our DM had a drow princess get one last action when she got to 0 hp to attack me with her only attack spell as I had severely pissed her off, and it was cast at 5th level
But her only attack spell was Ray of Sickness
How long did you have to spend to become immune to Iocane powder?
But you know that I know that you know that I know!
Now this is how you make a player feel like a badass.
But by no longer utilizing poison against the party because of the monk, the monk has effectively made the entire party immune to poison by virtue of it no longer being present in encounters! Hah!
But seriously though, cutting out stuff you know the party will hard-counter is just going to make the party not feel as cool. A balance of both is important. Believe me, as the guy in the party who could cast Silence, I know; hard-countering every boss encounter kind of makes the boss feel lame instead of fun.
I don't understand how silence "hard-counters"... I mean it blocks most casting for a round but it's only a 20 foot sphere, that can easily be moved out of. Yes it gives like one turn of disabling a caster, but honestly, lots of spells give that already.
Dilligent casters in a magic heavy setting probably know the dangers of silence and have prepared ways to work around it.
I just don't understand how it's possible, like you say, "hard-counter every boss". In specific situations, sure. But "every"? That would seem to me like just not a very smart/tactical DM you play with.
I feel like too many DMs play against the players instead of with them
The goal is not for the DM to win and feel cool
The goal is to let the players win and feel cool
I prefer the BLeeM method: try to kill them and then be amazed at how they, like cockroaches, survive anyways
The goal is to let the players win and feel cool
I wouldn't use "win" here because that's not always the case. I'd say'
"The goal is to acknowledge players decisions and show that their actions matter, regardless of the final result."
The number of online dms I hear complaining about flight speed races and flight spell boggles my mind. You just got licence to make 3d puzzles and encounters. And also show those players why spiders in magic the gathering had the ability to defend against flying creatures through out the 90s
Did that and when the monk was engulfed in the cloud of poison taking no damage he felt like quite the badass going for a flurry of blows with advantage (I told him with advantage because the dragon wasn't expecting him to be unfazed and he kept himself concealed in the cloud on his approach).
That's also when the rest of the party found out the monk was immune to poison.
10/10 would do that again
Last campaign I ran the paladin was so proud of herself for smiting down a couple lesser demons and gushed about it for the rest of the week. So for the next 3 arcs of that campaign I snuck in a cambion who was hounding the party and got his lights clocked in multiple times just knowing the dopamine release it gave that player even when every 'challenging' encounter crafter for that group was done in about 5 terms and took me nearly and hour to craft ahead of time.
To me as the DM it's your job to learn what quirks or functionality of the players particularly enjoy about their characters and find a way to sneak in encounters, puzzles or situations that give that player time to shine and enjoy it. Even and especially if it trivializes the challenge you put into it.
Let your players do cool shit. Let them be good at what they built their character for. You can challenge them while still giving them opportunities to be awesome.
I'll say that it's less of an issue, 9 times out of 10, because what they're going to be good at is weathering repeated encounters.
There's so many monsters that do poison damage - especially in the mid levels - that you'd be hard pressed to run a campaign where they just stop showing up. Are you just not going to send anyone through the Underdark because a Monk is in the party? Stop using half the demons, aberrations, and magical beasts in the MM?
But for climatic fights, it can add to the drama when the encounter is on disadvantagous terms. Sometimes the cool shit is overcoming the seeming impossible.
No party is immune to 100 twig blights in close proximity.
Turn undead and fire spells.
I mean, the Monk being immune to poison doesn't save anyone else in the breath attack.
Part of D&D is building synergy between the classes and operating as a team. At the same time, it's the group's biggest vulnerability.
Mind-splort the meat shield, gum up the support, grapple the damage dealer, or backstab the controller. Suddenly, the team is scrambling as their game plan falls apart.
And green dragons have so many tricks up their sleeves! The last thing I'm worried about is the breath weapon. It's our horny bard falling for her damned come-hither smile that keeps me up at night.
I have started to balance the game less and less and its getting more and more fun.
I tailor my encounters to what my players like, not what's going to challenge their dice and IRL luck. If my players are finding themselves having to cheese their build and pick the optimum feats and talents just so they can stand a chance, then I've failed as a DM.
If you're cheesing your build because you want to feel powerful, just tell me, and I'll do a campaign where you can feel powerful without needing to cheese your build. You should be able to make the character you want to roleplay as without feeling like you're inadvertently gimping yourself.
It's why I like Genesys and Powered by the Apocalypse, because those are RP heavy systems that don't require you to spend ages messing with stats in order to play the character you want to play.
Some people like to cheese their build to feel clever. But then again, solving riddles has a similar effect.
Tbh, I don't really get why this is an issue. As a DM I balance the game however feels good for everyone. My main strategy is that being more powerful shouldn't make the game easier but should give you more freedom and options.
And the game should never be too hard. To most people, losing a character sucks really hard, so character deaths should always be consentual.
I'm that weird exception about character death, partly because I like building new characters, and partly because I like seeing characters get cool ends. Like my low-mid level bard who, while the party was on its last legs in a boss battle, leapt at the dragon's face from an elevated position to attack at its face, mouth, throat, whatever he could get. IIRC, that bard and the dragon both died from that choice.
Edit: The campaign was at that point based in a small-medium town in a cold region. I remember the town had like 4 notable families, ones whose names meant something to folks in the area, and my bard was of one of the upper couple ones. So his death was definitely storied, crazy Uncle Artanis who died saving his friends and the region from a dragon.
My replacement character was a half-orc cleric who had trouble figuring out how to respect both halves of his heritage, and, in a big BSOD moment, rather than execute the defeated members of an orc tribe who refused to change their ways, he cast off his magic gear (armor, weapons, rings, whatever he had) and just walked off into the snowy forest, never to be played again. Which was just the only action I could imagine for him; he had "life" inside my head, and it was what "he" chose (I do not have DID).
That was 15+ years ago, and I only recently decided that he ended up forming a community of outcasts, people who couldn't find a place in the world, and sponsored conscientious adventurers. I like to think that tribe of orcs, if they survived, at least respected his community and didn't try to raid it.
That's totally ok, and that's also quite consentual.
I'm just against killing characters just because of bad dice rolls or stuff like that.
That's all we'll and good but in my experience DMing, it takes a lot of work to prepare interesting outcomes for the actions my players might take during a pivotal moment. A player with a guaranteed success at something is usually something I try to avoid so they don't feel railroads or like doing things that way is the ONLY solution. With 4 players I want everyone to have an equal share of interesting moments but when one person starts being a powerbuilding min/maxer I tend to build events from time to time that won't let them just steal the whole show.
Unfortunately, because they are a min maxing powerbuilder they are keenly aware of any opportunity for which they should have been the most OPest of characters and will sniff out how they have been silently slighted. They lock on to the fact that they didn't get to shine a few times while glazing over the times where they were OP because in their mind, that's how it's supposed to be!
Before you know it they start pouting, complaining to others, backseat rules lawyering, and just generally acting like they are being mistreated rather than trusting the DM to be trying their best to fit their fucking chadly, mind-controlling demigod in to situations with 3 other people who haven't hyper focused for days on the most efficient use of their action economy.
I'm bitching sure but end effect was similar to this meme's bad DM. I just stopped putting effort into letting the flawless demigod look cool because while he was A main character he was not THE main character and if that upset him... Well maybe next time he'll finally learn why the actual best characters to play are the ones with lots of interesting flaws
Try playing with adults.
not sure. i think i'd rather dm for my nieces and nephews.
My favorite dragon encounter was a dragon that I still don't know the species of. The damn thing was puce. My DM didn't want us to have any meta knowledge.
It was fun though because of how we got to, and dealt with, said dragon. Dragon was in a mountain lair that, when scryed upon it was revealed, was full of traps and minions.
My wizard figured out that she had just enough 8th and 9th level spell slots to cast Xorn Movement, and Improved Invisibility on the entire party (no invisibility on herself though), and still have 2 casts of Unfailing Missiles (9th level spell she created). We successfully snuck into the dragons lair, and took positions. Our monk was ready to grapple its tail, our rogue was ready to backstab, and was flying because he had a magic item, our cleric was prepping Harm,and our fighter was annoyed that I put her behind myself.
I tapped said sleeping dragon on the nose, and said in Draconic, "Wakey wakey." The dragon opened its mouth to use whatever breath weapon it had, and I said, "That's not a good idea, that will just make me and my friends angry."
The dragon then realized I was speaking draconic and parlayed with us. We explained that we didn't even want to be there, but the gods had tasked us with the eviction of the few dragons that weren't supposed to be on this particular prime material plane in the first place. We also explained that we had brought with us 20 empty bags of holding, and would prefer to relocate them off the plane to a plane of their choice. Thankfully that dragon took the deal. The other three ended up with their souls in rather large black diamonds, that the God of Knowledge had provided us.
This was always frustrating. One particular dm did that a lot. Oh, x was showing up so someone took y ability to deal with it? X no longer shows up ever again. Cool. Feels bad.
I would argue that both are bad game/story design. Unless the skill is a plot point, it should not change the chance encounters in the world your players are in. Both of these examples are meta-gaming. The NPCs of the world didn't know the player characters had that ability, and should not change their actions until it is known to them.
I had one DM who was huge on meta-gaming, and at first I thought it was just some peev of his, but honestly after a while and understanding it better- it made a better experience. It now makes me annoyed to see it used and I better understand his rants...
I get where you're coming from, but I disagree on a couple points:
Game design relies heavily on finding uses for the player character's abilities. Imagine a metroidvania where you pick up a cool new grappling hook, only to realize there's no terrain that can be grappled, and most enemies aren't affected. What's the point?
In terms of good/bad game design in TTRPGs, my philosophy is pretty simple; If everyone at the table is having a good time, it's good game design. For my players, getting to use the abilities that they picked or earned throughout the game is super rewarding. For me as a GM, I can scale encounters a little higher knowing that they have a built-in edge.
In fact, my number one resource for game prep is my players' character sheets. Did someone pick an obscure language as part of their backstory? You'd better believe it's going to show up in the game! Dragonchess proficiency? Guess what the game of choice is at the local tavern?
Conversely, if an ability becomes the only thing a PC relies on, it can be interesting to add a foil to that ability. For example, one of my players built a Kensei Monk with a specialization in firearms. It was a fun character for him, but the sheer damage output he could do kind of overshadowed everyone else. My solution was to introduce a combat encounter where he could use the weapon, but doing so had a chance to attract more hostile creatures.
Anyway, all this to say that in my opinion, playing to your player characters' strengths is not only rewarding for them, it can help a GM create some really cool moments.
They removed that from monk in 2024 😭
Honestly, why do DMs feel the need to try and wipe the party? DMs should be hoping the party succeeds because the party is usually going to find a way to wipe without their assistance.
Usually it is one of two things. Either the person is just a toxic asshole who wants to fuck over everyone, which is not that rare or they think of themselves as a player as well a bit too much. While the Dungeon Master is a part of the game and a player, sometimes the line can get a bit blurred where it seems like the Dungeon Master is playing against you to win. Does not mean that they're a bad dungeon master. Sometimes mistakes just happen or people get swept up, or other things they're going on. Soft reminders like saying that you enjoy all playing the game together or other such language that makes it seem cooperative helps to extinguish this behavior from a dungeon master. Using language like you're beating the dungeon master, even if it's in a joking way, can instill that behavior in the dungeon master themselves.
Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs
