Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Any D&D/D20

Shadowrun

World of Darkness

Palladium

Other (feel free to post about it)

[scriver]

But an enemy same level rogue is always the CR [party level]+2

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Now that you mention it, I don't know for sure what that rogue's level was, I just assumed it was the same because having played rogue before it would be an unimaginable cruelty to put the party up against a higher level source of Sneak Attacks.

[delphonso]

I once had a PC with a Charisma of 3 (as charismatic as a squid).

Remember Wisdom carries a lot in 5e. A gorilla might not recognize a suit of armor, but could instinctually know that the Rogue is a better target to kill first. Intelligence seems mostly related to mental endurance (studying/investigating/remembering). These are qualities of sentience, but not the totality of sapience.

[scriver]

Yeah, that sound about right actually. One could even say Intelligence is sapience, and Wisdom in sentience. And Charisma is egotism.

[Kagus]

Intelligence is IQ
Charisma is EQ
Wisdom is XP

[delphonso]

Yeah, it's a bit worthless to argue over, as it's just a game contrivance, but it's fun to compare statistics between creatures.

A hippogriff has an intelligence of 2 - as a highly trainable intelligent animal.

A stone golem has an intelligence of 3 - as an object created to do a single task.

A skeleton has an intelligence of 6 - as an object created to do a single task.

[Cthulhu]

I mean it doesn't need to be a game contrivance.  Int and Wis can/should be a useful thing to look at when figuring out how your monsters behave.

Yes, I'd buy that a rogue can one-shot equal level players, PC and monster math and mechanics are very different, which is another thing that kind of bugs me about 5e.  Players are designed to fight "monsters" as defined in the rules, and have very low health and gigantic damage.  Rogue sneak attack damage makes sense when you remember that a CR 1/2 thug can have up to 50 HP.  Among other things it makes pvp and NPCs designed with PC rules unworkable.

I'm making a lancer game, which also uses different player/monster math, but I'll let it slide since the game is simpler overall.  I don't hate 5e, it's perfectly serviceable, but I don't think it's as good as 3.5 or even 4e.  3.5 and 4e are mostly very good at the specific things they do.  You may not like those things, in the case of 4e (I hate 4e's dissociated mechanics, like the aforementioned bloody path, but if you just want a tactical wargame it works well)

My lancer game is gonna be a treasure hunt, but my RPG prepwork is increasingly indistinguishable from my job.  Patron sending them after a macguffin that a rival wants, they'll have to figure out where he's looking for it since he's ahead and try to cut him off.  Gonna be on a desert planet, a few different locations to look at and they'll need something from each of the two main sites (The lab, which'll have a still-functioning graywash nanite factory, which is what the incident report is about, somebody got gray gooed) to find the final location where the macguffin is stored.  Not sure what it is right now, probably some paracausal data storage, like you need to be in a certain physical location in the galaxy to actually read all the data cause it doesn't exist fully in this reality, maybe.

[delphonso]

That's an interesting point. Presumably, the Monster Manual's entries teach us enough about how a monster hunts (i.e., by inslaving you, going by 90% of monsters). It'd be awesome if Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma gave us some sort of formula for how different monsters would interact in a conflict.

A hill giant, two goblins, and a gnoll have teamed up to wreck havoc on the country-side. Perhaps the giant is the presumed leader, but is actually being controlled and coaxed by the goblins, while the gnoll is only loyal until a fight looks to be going south.

[scriver]

No, that's not how it would go. The Gnoll would be Inigo Montoya, the giant would be André the Giant, and the two goblins would be Fezzec in a trenchcoat

[Cthulhu]

I dunno if a hill giant would accept being controlled by goblins, at least overtly, but they might be playing wormtongue.  I'd think they wouldn't live very long in that grouping.  Modern gnolls are basically killmonsters, they have no motivation beyond tearing shit up.

Monsters do have some behavioral info in their text blocks, but it's not always complete and doesn't always jive.  Hobgoblins for example, which are also as smart as humans and basically crack military types, highly disciplined and capable of advanced strategy and tactics, throw all that in the trash and just charge in recklessly when they see an elf, for example, which is weird.  If I remember right they also misuse goblins, doing the usual "just run forward and melee until you die" tactic with them when they should be smart and tactically adept enough to recognize their real use as skirmishers.  Goblins excel at viet cong tactics, kobolds are the classic trap race but there's no reason goblins can't do it too, and their hide on bonus action means they can shoot, vanish, and relocate every round in rough terrain.  Just rules-wise they can punch well above their weight when played properly, and in a more narrative context with hobgoblins and goblins fighting a human force, can't discount the morale effects of a force like that.  Constant random harassing attacks, poisoned and infectious arrows, booby-traps designed to maim instead of kill, and chasing them into the woods is exactly what they want you to do.

The rules support this, but they're almost never used in this way in published adventures.  Despite me going on and on about them I fucking hate goblins and never use them.  They're such an absolute known quantity, pose zero threat (unless you use them right in which case they're a very possible TPK), just reek of everything boring and bland about D&D.

[MrRoboto75]

Honestly, the big problem is morale is just absent after like 2nd edition.  There's no system in place to justify monsters fleeing battle so generally everything fights to the death, and on the flip side encounters are generally set up so players should win, so they don't flee either.

[scriver]

I dunno if a hill giant would accept being controlled by goblins, at least overtly, but they might be playing wormtongue.  I'd think they wouldn't live very long in that grouping.

That's why they're in a trench coat, that way they appear bigger than they are

Modern gnolls are basically killmonsters, they have no motivation beyond tearing shit up.

This is everything boring and bland about DnD

[Cthulhu]

Honestly, the big problem is morale is just absent after like 2nd edition.  There's no system in place to justify monsters fleeing battle so generally everything fights to the death, and on the flip side encounters are generally set up so players should win, so they don't flee either.

This is a big part of it.  In general the game is designed around worked, carefully-designed encounters.  4e is the worst for this where it was pretty much engraved into the fabric of the game, but 5e does it too.  I try to design dungeons as a living thing, in the extreme I'll keep track of the organization of the monsters as a kind of probability cloud and pseudo-populate the rooms, moving them where they would reasonably be based on what's happening at the moment.

Ideally the entire dungeon is the battlefield when you're invading something controlled by intelligent, organized enemies.  They'll patrol, keep an eye on possible entrances, raise alarms and set up defensive measures, try to cordon the PCs into the areas they want to fight, execute a plan.  Conversely, PCs can retreat, engage, circle around and flank, use their various resources to break through the enemies' defenses and foil their gameplan.  But modern adventures don't do this very well, dungeons are usually linear and monsters are designed to be fought in a self-contained encounter with no outside interference aside from what's pre-designed into the encounter.  And because the game is designed like this, if players are accustomed to the modern way of doing things they won't handle it well.  THankfully my group was pretty quick on the uptake, the first time I sprung this kind of thing on it they figured out what was going on pretty fast and desisted on the standard "clear each room, kill everything, the game is made for you to win" strategy, but it could take some training.

Old school D&D at least in its core assumptions is better suited to this kind of thing.

The reaction check is also something I'm disappointed they've abandoned, and it feeds into this problem, where intelligent and even some unintelligent monsters react dynamically to the party's presence and may not be immediately hostile.

[Kagus]

I miss Incursion...

[IcyTea31]

Re: enemies using guerilla tactics.

There's theory on whether combat in roleplaying games should be run by the philosophy of sport or of war.

Combat-as-sport is the self-contained room with set number of level-appropriate monsters that might sometimes fight intelligently, but never "unfairly". The player characters are expected to return the favour with kick-in-the-door tactics and direct combat. Kill the one healing the others first. Have the paladin force the tough one into a duel while the rest of the party deals with the flunkies. Cast your own Fly spell to negate the enemy's advantage from the same.

Combat-as-war is the dungeon as a whole built as a defensible fortress designed to kill intruders with maximal efficiency and minimal defender casualties. If faced in direct combat, the player characters are extremely likely to fall. Instead, they are expected to play just as dirty. Build a huge bonfire and flood the dungeon with smoke, choke the kobolds out. Poison the trees with Agent Orange to leave the drop bears with nowhere to hide. Ambush the enemy's camp and destroy their food supply with a long-range Fireball, then get out before they can react.

There isn't a right or wrong way to play a roleplaying game, but it's essential to have everyone on the same page about what sort of combat is expected in the campaign. The philosophies are tools: combat-as-sport easily creates a classic fantasy story of good and evil in honourable direct conflict, while combat-as-war leaves things ambiguous in its verisimilitude. How can you be sure your opponent is evil if all you know of them is artillery targeting data?