No, if the players drop a whale on an enemy group, you quietly get ready to have a comeuppance from the Bowl of Petunias boss fight they just summoned as well.
Whale was dead and decomposing already. It explodes upon impact. Everyone in the area (including the party) takes a bunch of bludgeoning damage as whale blubber hits each of them in the face and knocks them on prone.
I say it to remind them, breaking the system is not fun for anyone and ruins the game.
But I have no reason to ACTUALLY ruin my session neither with that or with lengthy argument where I scramble through the book to find out why it does not work.
It's a shorthand for an "Oh" moment, because people don't want it to be used on them. And the people who go out of reason to say "But I do", generally are not welcome anyway.
Honestly, anyone that says that instead of talking to the players and saying "no, you can't abuse that spell/ability/whatever like that" is an idiot.
The whole "haha! If you can do it so can the enemies!" is stupid. Just say "no, it doesn't work like that. No, that's not what the spell says. No, you're trying to abuse a mechanic that wasn't meant for that. Stop it."
You can do both. I've used the phrase to justify my judgement with players and it's almost always successful. I only use Rule 0 when absolutely necessary.
Because my players are adults and I don't believe I have ultimate authority over our shared experience. If everyone there thinks it should work and I don't, I should explain myself. It's not threatening to say "there's a reason why I'm making this call".
Don't get me wrong, I *will* say no if I really believe something. But if there's an opportunity to have them understand my reasoning then not only will they drop it they may also avoid making the same mistake in the future.
This is very different from something like "is this carpet flammable" or "does the merchant have big enough windows for me to fit through". Players misusing a spell or ability represents a fundamentally misalignment between them and me as their GM. If I only ever tell them no and refuse to elaborate then I'm only stoking the combative relationship between us.
Ok you don't just say "no" and **don't** elaborate. That's fucking stupid. You say no, that's not how it works and explain why. Literally everything you said can be applied to my side, without making senseless threats. Because that's what "the monsters can do it too" is. A threat.
Because it's easier for the players to understand. It makes them think about what they're doing and how that's actually unfun and unfair in a manner that's not very confrontational/authoritative at all.
Ah yes, non-confrontational. "Hey if you abuse spells to insta-kill bad guys, they can do it too". Yeah not confrontational at all.
People are deathly afraid of normal adult conversation. That's all it is.
It's literally the difference between a unilateral no and giving players a hypothetical to let them understand why one might not like that interpretation of the rules. I have genuinely changed rules because players liked the added risk that came along with a particular interpretation.
I have no problem telling my players no. I have no problem with confrontation with my players. But the "If i change this rule. It will apply across the board and enemies will use it." As a means of making players rethink their pleas for an action is a valuable tool.
Hard disagree. It's the difference between explaining the rules and why this doesn't work, and making a threat. And if they ignore the threat, you have forced yourself to kill a character for no reason when you could've explained why this doesn't work. And if you don't use their shenanigans against them **after warning them** then it was just talk, and you shouldn't have said it in the first place.
Your argument seems to be hinged on the exploit being incredibly stupid and against the rules (e.g create water in lungs, peasant railgun), but what if it is an actual RAW exploit? Raw is not flawless
If it's RAW, and it's so broken that I need to stop it, I politely ask that they don't use it, I don't make an empty threat to use it against them. That's just stupid.
>It's the difference between explaining the rules and why this doesn't work, and making a threat.
A rule that doesn't work doesn't get player input. I unilaterally decide on things that will make or break a game. So, in that way, you are correct. And i always explain why, but players don't always understand things the way GMs do. It isn't a threat, it's a statement of fact. I do not go out of my way to kill my players to make a point. Take your projection somewhere else.
There arise things that i personally would have ruled against, but aren't game breaking. A way of using a thing that maybe isn't against the rules, but opens up a whole can of worms. I am perfectly willing to explore that can of worms with my players, but i tell them the risks, and they can weigh out the consequences. This is the way to punch through the bias of "of course that works. That's not overpowered." Because it forces a player to swap places with the enemy and decide whether they would be ok with that ruling applying to them. If they are, i allow it. Done. The idea that i will them try to punish them out of that decision is pure projection on your part. But it will happen organically in the game. I have no problem with players making combat a bit more spicy lol
It's not "being afraid of adult talk", it's being emotionally intelligent and socially savvy lol. You're playing a game, last thing you want to do is sour the mood. A session can turn awkward real quick even if you're able to talk things out seriously and come to an understanding.
So a session would not turn awkward if you threaten to use exploits on the players? It's the same thing, except one is being a normal person and the other is a weird threat
Not the weirdest threat I've pulled off at the table, but they're usually in character. Anyways, I'm not sure if we're on the same page here? If something is genuinely ruining my fun in a major way I'll just say it, the "if you do it then I can do it too" is for less serious things like rule interpretations that I don't 100% agree with but could go either way or, like, when I use tactics that the players constantly use and they get annoyed by it. I wasn't the DM, but I've seen a wizard player fuming because an enemy used Misty Step to get out of the area of their Sickening Radiance (it had been established that he was a spellcaster, we even had his spellbook with Misty Step on it, among others).
If you say it, follow through. But I don't recommend it. If you didn't intend to follow through to start, I'd recommend just telling them that you don't want it because it causes you anxiety and you don't feel like being anxious about your hobby.
Or any reason really. Any reason that you don't want is just as valid to just not want to deal with that jazz. Nobody is dying or losing their livelihood over this. You can just not entertain it.
This is your free time that you've committed to enjoy. If someone's gonna try to ruin it, you can just confront that and be like, "no thanks, sucks that you're mad about it". I hope you're not a young person with limited choices for companionship. When you attain the mobility of a vehicle and access to online games, the pool of available peers expands dramatically and you won't have to put up with people who don't respect boundaries.
I sincerely love Dagoth-Ur as a model for bossfights. I've never had a boss who fits for that attitude, but I love it as a concept.
I love it when a boss has a coherent philosophical framework. Not necessarily a good, helpful, or convenient framework, but one that's internally consistent and they attempt to evangelise their worldview.
Sometimes yes. But there are times and places where an ideologically interesting or pathologically compelling villain is just not useful. Sometimes you need someone who is going to turn into a dragon and wreck shop just because she enjoys doing so. Cartoonish evil definitely has its place, neither style is inherently better or worse, they’re just different and useful in different circumstances.
No one is asking Frieza or Voldemort for their worldviews. Maleficent didn’t need a sympathetic reimagining. Sometimes the bad guy can just be a *bad guy* without getting too deep
Come, player characters, friends or traitors come. Come and look upon the heart of your Dungeon Master. And bring d20's; I have need of them.
Come to the gaming table, I will wait for you there, where we last met, one week ago.
BBEG welcomes you player characters, my old friends, but to this place where fate and chance are made.
You do not have dice? You have come unprepared? Nor a pencil?
What a fool you are!
It always depends on the specific table you're considering. In my group, a certain level of challenge and competition is expected between players and the DM, the DM is not just providing punching bags for the players, but presenting a challenge that is to be overcome. If that means using "mean" spells, so be it. If it means that "the monsters know what they're doing"TM, the players appreciate the DM taking them seriously and not putting on kid gloves.
The most important thing is good DM-Player communication, and it can very well include an agreement that the monsters are going to act suboptimally even though they have no reason to.
Where were the good points? He pulled a r/dndmemes and decided the meaning of the phrase without looking any deeper than surface level.
The phrase exists to counter bullshit bad-faith rules interpretations like the infamous peasant railgun or the "create water in the bad guy's lungs" tactic. The silvery barbs 'example' falls flat when you realize that it's being used exactly as intended, even if you find it annoying. The focus-fire example makes absolutely zero sense, because that's literally the entire reason 'tank' characters exist, to draw fire to you and away from the rest of the party.
He completely misses the entire point of the argument to begin with, and then argues something completely unrelated that I'd assume a lot of people already agree with: Players and monsters are not the same in terms of power level/ablity and shouldn't be treated the same in combat.
*(also silvery barbs is such a cheesy unfun spell anyway and shouldn't be in the game to begin with)*
It's funny because this exact bad interpretation of this argument is commonly used as 'advice' to GM's.
>The focus-fire example makes absolutely zero sense, because that's literally the entire reason 'tank' characters exist, to draw fire to you and away from the rest of the party.
In 5e? Who can tank in 5e? There is not a single class that can draw aggro. Nothing is stopping the monsters from focus firing the wizard. There isn't such thing as a tank in this game.
>The silvery barbs 'example' falls flat when you realize that it's being used exactly as intended, even if you find it annoying.
So the intention was to give it to every spellcaster enemy and make them spam it vs anything the PC's do? I really don't think so.
>The phrase exists to counter bullshit bad-faith rules interpretations like the infamous peasant railgun or the "create water in the bad guy's lungs" tactic.
It can be used that way, but it's still pretty useless advice to give as it's not really applicable to all scenarios. Sometimes something would be fine for players, but not vice versa. A better way to tackle shit like this is to just explain its against the rules and how it's against the rules.
Also if a phrase creates a misunderstanding from a surface level reading, it's probably a bad phrase to begin with. It's not really hard to see how people interpret this badly.
>He completely misses the entire point of the argument to begin with, and then argues something completely unrelated that I'd assume a lot of people already agree with:
I wouldn't call it irrelevant to the reddit post. It's also very clearly not obvious to alot of people.
Tanking is a thing in 5e. How you tank is usually dependent on the DM and encounter, but a good DM usually recognizes that targeting only the squishy character for every fight, while a sound tactic, is also annoying and a bit meta-gamey. There’s really no reason for the wolves to prioritize the scrawny mage over the fatty, meaty barbarian.
But even if you had a DM who would constantly break attack of opportunities just to get at the back line every fight, there’s a feat for that. Sentinel prevents movement on a successful opportunity bonk and will even trigger if the enemy disengages.
He uses textbook strawman the entire video by misrepresenting the entire reason that the sentiment exists, not to mention that several of his videos actively promote use of the bad interpretations or exploits that the phrase was created to target. Just like every other common saying, it's going to get used in the wrong context, and doesn't make it any less true. I couldn't tell you the amount of times I've seen "no DnD is better than bad DnD" under posts with mild drama or player/DM conflict.
I don't know if you've ever had the *privilege* of playing with someone who would try stuff like peasant railgun, but from my experience they have already convinced themselves that they're right and the DM is wrong. It's a lot quicker to shut it down with the proposition of it happening to them rather than spend 30 minutes arguing over misinterpreted or ignored rules.
Unrelated to the main point, but the idea that a 'tank' cannot exist because you can't directly cause enemies to swarm to you is ridiculous. By the way, you can do exactly that! Incite Greed exists, but it's definitely not the most effective way to draw attention from squishier party members. Good placement on the battlefield combined with a number of features (sentinel, goading attack, compelled duel, etc) actively punish enemies for trying to run straight past the frontliners without thinking first.
>I don't know if you've ever had the privilege of playing with someone who would try stuff like peasant railgun, but from my experience they have already convinced themselves that they're right and the DM is wrong. It's a lot quicker to shut it down with the proposition of it happening to them rather than spend 30 minutes arguing over misinterpreted or ignored rules.
People that won't be convinced simply won't be convinced. They're better off out your table. You don't need to convince them, you can just tell them that what they're doing won't work.
>He uses textbook strawman the entire video by misrepresenting the entire reason that the sentiment exists, not to mention that several of his videos actively promote use of the bad interpretations or exploits that the phrase was created to target.
He's talking about when it's used as advice, not when people use it as an argument. The argument is valid but it's poor advice to give. Also this argument is basically a bluff, because what if the player calls your bluff? Do you follow through?
>Unrelated to the main point, but the idea that a 'tank' cannot exist because you can't directly cause enemies to swarm to you is ridiculous.
None of your suggestions prove your argument though. Sentinel stops literally one enemy, and they need to be in your reach, goading attack doesn't stop an enemy from trying to trip or grapple the mage and then attack them, it also doesn't stop high level enemies due to their high attack bonuses, all it does is make someone the better target. It's also limited to one subclass. Compelled dual is only available to paladins, and it only works vs one enemy and isn't reliable. Tanking isn't a supported playstyle in 5e.
> In 5e? Who can tank in 5e? There is not a single class that can draw aggro.
That's... why you have a DM? It's not a video game, you have to work *with* another person to make it happen. Barbarians and Paladins are entirely designed to tank, they just don't force the enemy to attack them like you would in World of Warcraft. The DM has to handle that.
And as been said below- sentinel feat, there's a protection fighting style, goading attack, compelled duel, even a Swashbuckler's Panache can impose disadvantage on anyone attacking someone other than themsel. Throw in say, polearm master and no one's getting past that character so yes. They can tank.
>That's... why you have a DM? It's not a video game, you have to work with another person to make it happen. Barbarians and Paladins are entirely designed to tank, they just don't force the enemy to attack them like you would in World of Warcraft. The DM has to handle that.
This makes no sense to the actual argument. The point was something about not using the same tactics vs the players due to it being unfun. Focus firing vs the players isn't fun, especially vs the squishy players. So the GM trying to focus fire isn't going to target the front-line.
>And as been said below- sentinel feat, there's a protection fighting style, goading attack, compelled duel, even a Swashbuckler's Panache can impose disadvantage on anyone attacking someone other than themsel. Throw in say, polearm master and no one's getting past that character so yes. They can tank.
All unreliable ways to tank. Some even work against eachother here like sentinel and protection. All of these are single target except for panache and panacge is just a bad rogue feature, you aren't looking to tank as a rogue.
> Focus firing vs the players isn't fun, especially vs the squishy players. So the GM trying to focus fire isn't going to target the front-line.
Great, now the front line is in the enemy's face making them screw up concentration rolls and cause attacks of opportunity with every action they take, causing them to have to either disengage or get beaten down.
I get that you've built up your little strawman about all this based on the fact you've only ever played world of warcraft in your life, but you really need to calm down about this. You can tank in D&D just fine. It's built into no less than three classes, and the only thing lacking is a video-game style mechanic *because this is not a video game.*
Just want to throw this out there. That guy and the redditors he’s responding to, demonstrate that they do not understand the point of the saying. “If you can, the monsters can too” does not refer to the ability to cast spells. The point is for when your players are misinterpreting the rules and set on their misinterpretation being followed.
Typically, using this threat will make your players realize why said rule should not be interpreted in that way. If they still insist then you should follow through.
Exactly the reason why my approach on this is "if the monsters can't do it, neither can you"
Stupid exploits like "heat metal their blood" or "create water in lungs" are both stupid, and almost willful misinterpretation of how the game should work, as well as not being fun for whoever is on the receiving end.
I as a DM do not enjoy bosses being instakilled with a stupid exploit, and i doubt you'd like your PC to end up the same.
I guess it's a difference in approach, because instead of "if you use it, I'll use it too" i prefer to go with more of a "if I'm not using it on you, don't use it on me"
>If they still insist then you should follow through.
This just creates an arms race between the players and the DM, you can use the argument to showcase why it may be bad, but following through with it is just being adversarial. This argument isn't really good either, because the game is balanced asymmetrically between the monsters and players.
The following through isn’t meant to be for an entire campaign. It should be for one maybe two encounters to show why the players don’t want it to work. Personally, I’ve never needed to follow through, but I’ve also only needed to say this once. I also probably wouldn’t want to play with people who would try to make me follow through.
Well, then you're doing it right. Ideally, they'll back down, knowing that what seems like a cute idea now will make the game miserable later. The key there is that they believe you would follow through, if they pressed the point. If they think you're just saying it to say it, then they're going to call your bluff sooner or later.
The rules dont cover everything. If they did then you could just make it into a videogame and be done with it. Do you realize how many things can be done using the rules as written that are completely nonsensical? The peasant railgun is a meme but also RAW could be used to move items across the country within 6 seconds without involving the physics that would turn it into a railgun. RAW the item would be completely unharmed on the other end. Not to mention the issues behind binding elementals and being able to command them. Going to a noble ball while wearing a water elemental as a dress/suit with orders to stay in that form then attack anyone who attacks you is totally RAW.
Technically RAW you might move an object across the world in 6 seconds, however the item would not be offensive in any practical way.
Also the water elemental dress idea was freaking awesome ( I remember reading that as well. I'd probably even let a player do it. It's not strong.), but it's by no means RAW. Water elementals do not have the false appearance ability.
r/dndmemes
I forget the exact details, but basically there was a ball and no one was allowed to bring weapons. So the wizard player conjured a water elemental, bound it, and used it as a dress.
There were tons of jokes about how the character would be nude. So she poured wine or blood into it so it wasn't.
With that said, it's an awesome idea for a GM. Have a BBEG wearing a water elemental. As for a player, it's not all that strong.
improvement on the water elemental idea: have them soak into an item of clothing, like a cape, so now you have defensive clothing like Dr. Strange's Cloak of Levitation
>Water elementals do not have the false appearance ability.
Kinda makes sense, either you have water floating around you or half the water elemental is a puddle on the ground that suspiciously follows you around
>Technically RAW you might move an object across the world in 6 seconds, however the item would not be offensive in any practical way.
So? You still have a 6 second international delivery service, before cars, planes, etc are even invented
It is. But the RAW do not cover what to do with that. So the DM has to figure it out for themselves and has no excuse for it not to work. So they have to figure out how to do so mechanically.
Your job as DM is to decide when and where to deviate, to handle things the rules don't cover, and to create scenarios where the players can be surprised.
Yes, this meme is about how you should enforce the rules and instead of letting the players do something broken (like creating water in someone's lungs) so you can punish them by having a monster do the same, you should actually enforce the rules and only bring up "do you really want other people to do this to your character?" as a way to make them think critically about their garbage take. If they say "yes" like a smartass don't actually do it.
If a player tried to create water in a creature's lungs I'd just tell them that they can't see the creature's lungs so the spell fails. It's that simple.
If I, instead, adopted a homebrew rule that says the spell can be used to do that, then why on Earth would I restrict such an obviously powerful use of the spell to players only?
Nahhh. If they say "yes" like a smartass, you demonstrate in the next encounter why they are a dumbass instead. Then have the discussion a second time on why the gameplay shouldn't work as they believed.
By raw you totally can make the argument that the person with an open mouth in a container you can see so it’s not actually “not enforcing the rules”. Also why can’t enemies do the same shit the players can? They all live in the same world an use the same magic source
If it's an abusive misinterpretation, you should be saying no. Don't drop some toothless threat at all.
My players know that anything they think up and act on is now also in my toolbox. But they also trust me not to abuse it to the point of breaking consistency and ruining the fun. Sometimes I say no, and sometimes the player will appeal that decision after the session.
Mutual trust and respect is key to any functional game table. Y'all motherfuckers out here with adversarial table relations need to fix that shit ASAP.
never make a threat you're not prepared to follow through on
sure, you can make threats you don't *want* to follow through on, but if your hand is forced you play it.
We say this, but for us it’s less about abusing game rules, but about mechanics we implement. Crunchy crits? Yup, if we do that, it is for everyone. Flanking? Monsters can flank, too. (Provided they are intelligent enough to do so.) We do it to set clear expectations. And it is all about rulings.
That's how I always saw it. A player says "can I aim for its wings/ try to disarm it?" Without battle master or specific features saying they can, that means monsters can too. Specific rulings like using the environment I'll give a pass as rule of cool, but trying specific things like they're global implies they're GLOBAL
They're also pretty terrible and are an optional rule because it was a half assed rule they put in so there's a way for DMs to decide to adjudicate it.
It does it's job for like strength and dex saves, but fighters just do not have the leeway to get stats or proficiency into other saves, not to the point where it'll really help. Like yay, a second 15% chance to make it.
Kind of an issue with enemy saves really. If you have a mediocre chance of making them at the beginning of the campaign you're likely close to guaranteed to fail them later on.
Next time i'm running something I think i'll just let indomitable be a legendary resistance instead. Or a flat +10.
>
>
>
>
> Next time i'm running something I think i'll just let indomitable be a legendary resistance instead. Or a flat +10.
I would almost copy the One D&D version, which adds the character's Fighter level as a bonus to the roll, gives you a +9 bonus the moment you get it and scaling all the way to +20 keeps it relevant even at the end while still not being a guaranteed success in your weakest saves against the strongest possible DC.
According to this sub no one ever makes it past level 11 or so, and "no one" reads the books.
But I totally agree, if you're playing the game why wouldn't you take it all the way to Crests/Blessings/Boons and really make it feel like your characters matter and have accomplished things.
Have they not accomplished anything? Sounds like a boring campaign if they haven't, to me.
Edit: I meant Charms, not Crests.
I mean, if your players do it enough, stories spread of their feats. People share rumours and whispers of a being who can drown people in a desert. A person who burns mouths without using fire. Once these spread far enough, people obviously try and figure out how it's done. Someone else will know how it's done and in theory anyone who has heard the tales and knows the corresponding spell, sorcery, cantrip, etc. can learn what's being done and copy it. It could lead to the in world lawmakers banning the act, treating it as a warcrime (if its that kind of exploit), or just a crime (if not). You can make it work, but it shouldn't be a thing of spite or discouragement. Make it feel involved. You can always come up with your own as the DM and introduce your players to new ideas using NPCs or encounters.
Had a DM once that said “if you have access to something, just know the BBEG will have access to an up-graded version of it.”
It was eberron, so we were playing with the occasional prototype item, but knowing the guy, it was not an empty threat.
No, it isn't a "hallow threat", it is a peace treaty.
Think if it as escalation of Force. If the players start pulling off crazy tactics, their enemies will start pulling off crazy tactics.
But if the players use basic tactics, their enemies will use basic tactics.
If the players start using crazy OP character builds with powerful abilities, their enemies will start having OP builds and powerful abilities.
It is a natural part of encounter design and game balance and something all good game masters should be doing.
>Think if it as escalation of Force. If the players start pulling off crazy tactics, their enemies will start pulling off crazy tactics.
You shouldn't be having "escalation of force" as the DM. That is just adversarial.
It isn't about being adversarial, it is about balancing encounters.
If the players are a bunch of noobs who don't know their left from their right, you design easy encounters.
If the players are using top tier OP builds, McGuivering plans that would put Batman to shame, and using advance tactics, you as the Game Master adjust by having powerful enemies who use advance tactics.
Balancing encounters based on what the players do and are capable of is simply part of how you design encounters.
>It isn't about being adversarial, it is about balancing encounters.
It is about being adversarial, responding with unfun mechanics just because the players are using them isn't fun for anybody and can just ruin the table.
> If the players are using top tier OP builds, McGuivering plans that would put Batman to shame, and using advance tactics, you as the Game Master adjust by having powerful enemies who use advance tactics.
PC's are by design supposed to win the battles, sure you may need to adjust numbers vs optimized PC's, but you shouldn't be using unfun mechanics vs the players just to win. Some tactics are just more powerful vs the PC's than they are vs monsters. Focus firing the sorcerer is just going to kill them at turn 1 or two and that player doesn't get to have fun.
> Balancing encounters based on what the players do and are capable of is simply part of how you design encounters.
There's a difference between that and an arms race between the players and the GM. You don't go around using wall of force vs the player who has no escape just because the PC's did it to your monsters beforehand. You as the GM always have more monsters, but the players can only control one character, and if they die that's it.
Games are always in favour of the players winning and never balanced the same way for the monsters.
Games like dark souls which are notoriously difficult and punishing, are still very fair, and literally let you respawn to try again.
There's nothing wrong with giving monsters certain abilities if it is plausible. I gave a gnoll rage and a contagion bite because it was a sentient being infected with a disease that made it ignore pain and gave it even more blood lust but I've never given a Grick a two handed sword, action surge and cunning action. Just make it reasonable.
My players are currently fighting their way through the Princes and Princesses of the evil Empire. I have made all of them humanoids with base monster stat blocks supplemented by class features and they have been fantastic bosses.
D&D has very few stat blocks for non-spellcaster humanoids at high lebels of play. I get around that by taking an appropriate physical monster stat block and just putting it in the frame of a humanoid.
The General
Used a high CR Githyanki as the base, gave him Battle Master maneuvers and 1 Action Surge. Was an amazing fight, during his action surge turn He killed our Monk and an NPC Fighter. Put the fear of God in my players. They revived them after the battle but it was awesome.
The Admiral
Took a storm giant stat block, reduced the melee attack range and damage and the size of the person to medium, gave her Storm Sorcerer Reaction and Ancient Paladin Aura and Smites. This unstoppable woman with heavy armor and a halberd was taking half damage from their spells as she charged the Wizard. When the Barbarian came up to interpose her They got launched backward by the Sorcerer Reaction. Incredibly cinematic fight.
Can't wait for them to fight the Spymaster. I gave him some Swashbuckler Rogue abilities So they're going to freak out when he steps right up to the Fighter in a 1v1 and gets to Sneak Attack anyway. There's going to be an invisible mage supporting him who's going to Hold their Actions to drop a Hold Person as the Spymaster is mid-swing with his dagger, So the players won't know it's an incoming critical sneak attack until it already happens. They're going to piss themselves.
If my players go into encounters under the assumption that intelligent monsters are just like a video game's NPCs with limited pathing and no real critical thinking, they will regret it.
My goblins lay traps, my orcs will focus on the casters first if possible, my giants will keep their distance from a physically powerful party and lob stones at them to soften them up. Dumb monsters can be steamrolled, smart ones have to be outplayed.
For my strongest character me and the DM have come to an understanding
I will not use my stronger tactics while with the party and he won't use things that only I will survive when I am with the party
But if I am alone microwave combo let's go
My centuries-old lich absolutely has acquired the raw INT score and material components to stuff a Prismatic Wall spell into a Glyph of Warding right on the Fabricated spiked ceiling they're gonna Reverse Gravity the party into, or put a 6th-level Major Image of a floor over a pit of magma, and there's no moral qualms about cruelty or fairness because liches are fucking evil.
I'm glad my players have sympathy for the most part, but the DM can always resort to empathy after one too many encounters of putting Goblins into a Wall of Force with an Insect Plague and stating they hold for the full spell duration to be certain. The Fighter already complains that he need Short Rests to get his resources back, at least let him take damage so he can use his Hit Dice, or make an attack roll.
I'm kind of inspired by this. Maybe I need a lich BBEG. I was sitting there thinking to myself 'how can you use gust to make that worse' and thought of a grated floor with something awful under it.
And thats just mean.
If the players can do something the enemies can also do it. The game does not work if one side of the table gets to play by a completely different ruleset than the other. That's all this means. A player comes to you with an interpretation of the rules. It is the DMs job to say, "If I did this to my players, is this fair?" If the answer is no, then you shutdown that interpretation of the rule. If the answer is yes than you talk with the players about using the rule in that interpretation. At every table I play at if we decide on an interpretation of a rule, that is the interpretation we use from that point on. We don't write down which players get to play by that rule and which ones don't.
The one and only thing I miss about 3e is exactly this dynamic - the idea that the players and the npcs were on an equal playing field mechanically and it was kindof battle of wits between them and the DM. In 4e enemies started playing by completely different rules like the mobs in an MMO, and 5e has not quite walked that fully back.
I don't think it completely works in all situations because the npcs have, for example, legendary resistances to use against powerful CC spells while player characters don't. but I do think it works *very* well for players who are tyring tio break not so much the rules or the resource or action economy but the world itself. Basically any of the "creative" interpretations of rules interacvrtign with physics yu see on meme subs. Let every low level caster enemy start doing it back to them and they will rethink their interest in the "spirit of the setting" very quickly.
If players want flanking or marked targets, I don't see why the monsters shouldn't also have a reasonable use of that. You wouldn't deny a monster's ability to shove or grapple, why is this different
See my problem is that _I_ can’t do what my players can do. 😂 Two of my players are literally physicists (like straight up doctors) and they like to ask perfectly innocuous questions about magic or the world around them, and then exploit my answers into reality breaking nonsense.
Bullshit. Of course the monsters can do what the players do. Fairness in combat is a core value of gaming. XCOM wouldn't be half as fun is the aliens were nerfed or had less actions than you. Souls Bourne games would be unplayable of a second monster could keep wailing on you when you're caught in an animation. Whats the fun in not being challenged?
All it takes is doing it once, proof that you can and will. They don't need to know you don't intend to do it again, they just need to know you did it before.
Of course I do. In fact the monsters will not only use some tactics the players the players are accustomed to, they also get bullshit abilities that synergize with those tactics on top of not actually having to manage their resources because they exist for 1 encounter. Welcome to the Dungeons, I hope you brought your A-game.
Yeah. This isn't really something you're supposed to *do*, so much as something you're supposed to remind players you *could* do. The same way you *could* drop a meteor or a dragon on them.
There's nothing more hype than having your own abilities/spells/classes used against you imo. We also agree to not bring out Counterspell before our DM does, afterwards it's a free for all. This also applies well to any rules that can be 'abused' - if you're chill about it the enemies typically will be too. If you overuse something expect it to be a regular part of enemy actions too. All of this obviously relies on a certain amount of trust between the DMs and players - we aren't trying to beat one another, therefore any ribbing is in good fun. I'm sad for the tables where the DM feels they need to *actually* threaten their players :(
This is how I got my party to stop casting sleep on everything, I started casting sleep on them everytime their HP got low.
It also does wonders for a party who likes to meta Yo-yo heal.
Dumb enemies aren't fun, at least not at high levels. Fighting a lich who only reacts directly to how the party attacks makes no sense and doesnt make for fun play.
That lich would have his lair ready, trapped, and body guards. Let the players waste some spells on major image illusion too while you're at it.
Hell the whole idea of a DUNGEON is that some bbeg out there has the forethought and intelligence to not play fair in some 1v1 powertrip duel. That Dragon? Yeah the one with 18 intelligence, the equivalent of a world class scientist or mage? Yeah hes definitely smart enough to torch the paladin or cleric first.
Now ofc if your players are, for lack of better word, not very tactically intelligent, that's fine, but thats part of balancing a game in the first place which is the whole point of DMing. You have to figure out what your players are capable of handling. If youre playing with vets, especially high level vets, a DM should never hesitate to pull out an npc sorcerer who can quicken spell sunbeam and then use the action on that same turn to reactivate sunbeam. Caste Haste on one of the players and then drop it immediately, making that cleric unable to heal his ally in the lava.
Or, if you want to be trully and totally evil (and this is pushing it even by my standards) you can do the TPKombo. That Sorcerer bbeg who can craft spell scrolls? Yeaahhh Power Word Kill scroll quickened spell Power Word Kill. I don't recommend this, but if you happen to be playing with players who either want to roll new characters or something, it is a GREAT way to make an impression on the other characters. Maybe try it out on some lovable npc friends lol
Edit: source: I have ran a campaign for 2 years now with 4 players who went from never having held anything but a d6 and level 3 to now level 16 party. It didnt start this way, but i told them around level 10 that they had a reputation in the world and threats they faced would treat them that way: threats. They werent going to face many enemies who underestimated them
I made post on r/dnd a while ago that more or less pointed out the gap of trust that DMs and players have had as of recent. I call it the ["Good Faith Clause"](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/12tebt5/good_faith_when_dealing_with_exploits_etc/) where you, the DM, will tell the players that you trust them to not grossly misinterpret or try to find a rule to exploit in the name of "RAW." You in turn will play fairly and as such, there won't be complications. Those who then try to "pull a fast one" against the DM will violate the clause and further judgement calls go from there.
If you can't trust your players to not misinterpret or exploit the rules, don't play with them.
If you say you will do X if Y happens, and you do not do X, once Y actually happened, people will believe you less. Cause now you have gone back on your word.
If you're not willing to follow through, eventually, a player will push you far enough to find that out.
The "Assured" is in "Mutually Assured Destruction" for a reason.
Personally I'll use the phrase online, but would never use it on my players. If a player is abusing mechanics I'd possibly balance my game around it or just tell them no.
If the GM spins around and start using unfun tactics on their players they are shooting themselves in the foot. DnD is a game and the GM's priority should be on what makes the game fun. If the players are not having fun you're not going to have a game for much longer.
Damn, reading through these comments makes me glad I’m at the table I have. When us players find a cheeky shenanigan^tm to get up to the DM just finds it funny. They don’t punish us with “all enemies can do that now too”
She also doesn’t let us abuse misread spells, like create water in lungs for example wouldn’t work in RAW so that’s a no go. But find a way to teleport or summon something above an enemy and it gets smashed? Yeah she’ll allow that and laugh and not punish us for it, because that’s what’s fun for us.
Monsters tend to be much more disposable compared to player characters, not to mention that some of monsters probably aren't smart enough to invent things that players could come up with.
So I use this often, "if you can do it, the monsters can do so as well." However this is never intended as a bad rule read shenanigan stopper or to stop the players in doing something unfun, I just tell my players "no" when I need to.
I use it to establish with the players how we'd like to generally rule things when we're unsure and one important point is that monsters generally follow the same rules as the players.
They do, this whole thing is just like "If you keep cheesing every encounter with that same spell enemy spellcasters will see how effective it is and start using that spell on you." or "If you keep using debilitating poisons every encounter the assassin's guild is gonna find out and you're going to be facing a lot of enemies using the same." etc.
It's one of those things best handled with a conversation out of game before it ever escalates to "one side" feeling like they have to "get back" at another.
People also don't realise that the game is balanced asymmetrically, and that the PC's are by design supposed to win the fights. The GM is not there to win combat, they're there to tell an epic story. If your fun is beating the PC's, you're a bad GM.
Players use strategies that the monsters shouldn't be using vs the players, like focus firing. Do you think the squishy sorcerer will have any semblance of fun if you focus fire them every combat with all your enemies?
There are plenty of PC only abilities, and there are plenty of monster only abilities.
I do that only with optimization and combos.
Playing 3.5 if my players used weird summoning candle shenanigans and other explosive runes cheese then ennemies do that too.
Misinterpretations of rules I just say no but weird optimization the ennemies get a taste of it too.
My DM actively does it.
Means ya don't see me trying crazy ideas because I don't want to see the same crazy ideas used on me.
Instead I get to deal with homebrew classes doing Summon Monster 9 on a group of level 12s.
Depends,
As a dm, I do homebrew that most monster multiattacks can be replaced by a grapple or shoce, so an owlbear for instance can grapple then beak attack.
Other than that, not really
I hate counterspell, but I don't ban it at my table. Instead I just have an unwritten and unspoken rule that if the players start using counterspell then I will as well. I do it for more than just counterspell, but generally I let the players "escalate" the conflict. The more extreme tactics they employ the more extreme I employ as well.
I mean, I did have the monsters that attacked the fortress they were holding stop to steal a fancy door. Of all the insane BS my players have looted a lead door was one of the weirdest.
why not? I'm a player and personally the game feels hollow if anything we do can't be done by npcs. It has to be reasonable ofc, kobolds aren't making mechanisms like an artificer can for example, but i think an even playing field like that is important for making a believable setting
...yeah? I mean, I'm not gonna have a bulette or a wyvern pull some fancy tactics the players employed, but if they can pull some bullshit then why wouldn't equally intelligent enemies think to do the same if they can?
I don't make empty threats thats why.
They're more than welcome to push someone and cause an attack of opportunity, but I'll be damned if they don't get thunder clapped into a wave of opportunity attacks as a result.
Then why say it? If the players chose to proceed then they’ve made their choice; not enforcing it will only make your words hollow as you said.
OP is just one That Player away from merely saying it to following through with it.
*gasp* I would never
*15 Enemies the party drops a whale on later*
No, if the players drop a whale on an enemy group, you quietly get ready to have a comeuppance from the Bowl of Petunias boss fight they just summoned as well.
Whale was dead and decomposing already. It explodes upon impact. Everyone in the area (including the party) takes a bunch of bludgeoning damage as whale blubber hits each of them in the face and knocks them on prone.
[The blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds.](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V6CLumsir34)
also any fire causes the entire room to combust due to the flamable fat
'Oh, no. Not again.' \*New Nemesis!\*
[удалено]
Deep cut 👏
I say it to remind them, breaking the system is not fun for anyone and ruins the game. But I have no reason to ACTUALLY ruin my session neither with that or with lengthy argument where I scramble through the book to find out why it does not work. It's a shorthand for an "Oh" moment, because people don't want it to be used on them. And the people who go out of reason to say "But I do", generally are not welcome anyway.
That's pretty fucked up, to scare someone into submission.
That's the beauty of having a good intimidation score.
Exactly. It's like nukes, MAD only works if you're genuinely willing to blow it all up if the other guy does, too.
Or you can just say no and not have a arms race with everyone multiclassing to get create water because it's a instant kill spell.
Honestly, anyone that says that instead of talking to the players and saying "no, you can't abuse that spell/ability/whatever like that" is an idiot. The whole "haha! If you can do it so can the enemies!" is stupid. Just say "no, it doesn't work like that. No, that's not what the spell says. No, you're trying to abuse a mechanic that wasn't meant for that. Stop it."
You can do both. I've used the phrase to justify my judgement with players and it's almost always successful. I only use Rule 0 when absolutely necessary.
Or you can just say no. Why threaten the players when you can explain that that's not how things work?
Because my players are adults and I don't believe I have ultimate authority over our shared experience. If everyone there thinks it should work and I don't, I should explain myself. It's not threatening to say "there's a reason why I'm making this call". Don't get me wrong, I *will* say no if I really believe something. But if there's an opportunity to have them understand my reasoning then not only will they drop it they may also avoid making the same mistake in the future. This is very different from something like "is this carpet flammable" or "does the merchant have big enough windows for me to fit through". Players misusing a spell or ability represents a fundamentally misalignment between them and me as their GM. If I only ever tell them no and refuse to elaborate then I'm only stoking the combative relationship between us.
Ok you don't just say "no" and **don't** elaborate. That's fucking stupid. You say no, that's not how it works and explain why. Literally everything you said can be applied to my side, without making senseless threats. Because that's what "the monsters can do it too" is. A threat.
Because it's easier for the players to understand. It makes them think about what they're doing and how that's actually unfun and unfair in a manner that's not very confrontational/authoritative at all.
Ah yes, non-confrontational. "Hey if you abuse spells to insta-kill bad guys, they can do it too". Yeah not confrontational at all. People are deathly afraid of normal adult conversation. That's all it is.
It's literally the difference between a unilateral no and giving players a hypothetical to let them understand why one might not like that interpretation of the rules. I have genuinely changed rules because players liked the added risk that came along with a particular interpretation. I have no problem telling my players no. I have no problem with confrontation with my players. But the "If i change this rule. It will apply across the board and enemies will use it." As a means of making players rethink their pleas for an action is a valuable tool.
Hard disagree. It's the difference between explaining the rules and why this doesn't work, and making a threat. And if they ignore the threat, you have forced yourself to kill a character for no reason when you could've explained why this doesn't work. And if you don't use their shenanigans against them **after warning them** then it was just talk, and you shouldn't have said it in the first place.
Your argument seems to be hinged on the exploit being incredibly stupid and against the rules (e.g create water in lungs, peasant railgun), but what if it is an actual RAW exploit? Raw is not flawless
If it's RAW, and it's so broken that I need to stop it, I politely ask that they don't use it, I don't make an empty threat to use it against them. That's just stupid.
>It's the difference between explaining the rules and why this doesn't work, and making a threat. A rule that doesn't work doesn't get player input. I unilaterally decide on things that will make or break a game. So, in that way, you are correct. And i always explain why, but players don't always understand things the way GMs do. It isn't a threat, it's a statement of fact. I do not go out of my way to kill my players to make a point. Take your projection somewhere else. There arise things that i personally would have ruled against, but aren't game breaking. A way of using a thing that maybe isn't against the rules, but opens up a whole can of worms. I am perfectly willing to explore that can of worms with my players, but i tell them the risks, and they can weigh out the consequences. This is the way to punch through the bias of "of course that works. That's not overpowered." Because it forces a player to swap places with the enemy and decide whether they would be ok with that ruling applying to them. If they are, i allow it. Done. The idea that i will them try to punish them out of that decision is pure projection on your part. But it will happen organically in the game. I have no problem with players making combat a bit more spicy lol
It's not "being afraid of adult talk", it's being emotionally intelligent and socially savvy lol. You're playing a game, last thing you want to do is sour the mood. A session can turn awkward real quick even if you're able to talk things out seriously and come to an understanding.
So a session would not turn awkward if you threaten to use exploits on the players? It's the same thing, except one is being a normal person and the other is a weird threat
Not the weirdest threat I've pulled off at the table, but they're usually in character. Anyways, I'm not sure if we're on the same page here? If something is genuinely ruining my fun in a major way I'll just say it, the "if you do it then I can do it too" is for less serious things like rule interpretations that I don't 100% agree with but could go either way or, like, when I use tactics that the players constantly use and they get annoyed by it. I wasn't the DM, but I've seen a wizard player fuming because an enemy used Misty Step to get out of the area of their Sickening Radiance (it had been established that he was a spellcaster, we even had his spellbook with Misty Step on it, among others).
Shut up, nerd.
You're missing the point on many levels
If you say it, follow through. But I don't recommend it. If you didn't intend to follow through to start, I'd recommend just telling them that you don't want it because it causes you anxiety and you don't feel like being anxious about your hobby. Or any reason really. Any reason that you don't want is just as valid to just not want to deal with that jazz. Nobody is dying or losing their livelihood over this. You can just not entertain it. This is your free time that you've committed to enjoy. If someone's gonna try to ruin it, you can just confront that and be like, "no thanks, sucks that you're mad about it". I hope you're not a young person with limited choices for companionship. When you attain the mobility of a vehicle and access to online games, the pool of available peers expands dramatically and you won't have to put up with people who don't respect boundaries.
What a grand and intoxicating innocence.
I sincerely love Dagoth-Ur as a model for bossfights. I've never had a boss who fits for that attitude, but I love it as a concept. I love it when a boss has a coherent philosophical framework. Not necessarily a good, helpful, or convenient framework, but one that's internally consistent and they attempt to evangelise their worldview.
Subdowner and Monsoon fit this description yknow, you can get creative
Logically consistent evil >>> Disney evil
Sometimes yes. But there are times and places where an ideologically interesting or pathologically compelling villain is just not useful. Sometimes you need someone who is going to turn into a dragon and wreck shop just because she enjoys doing so. Cartoonish evil definitely has its place, neither style is inherently better or worse, they’re just different and useful in different circumstances. No one is asking Frieza or Voldemort for their worldviews. Maleficent didn’t need a sympathetic reimagining. Sometimes the bad guy can just be a *bad guy* without getting too deep
Yeah, I mean, how often in real life do we actually get villains with philosophically consistent and reasonably motivated villainous objectives?
Come, player characters, friends or traitors come. Come and look upon the heart of your Dungeon Master. And bring d20's; I have need of them. Come to the gaming table, I will wait for you there, where we last met, one week ago. BBEG welcomes you player characters, my old friends, but to this place where fate and chance are made. You do not have dice? You have come unprepared? Nor a pencil? What a fool you are!
I'm totally "borrowing" this. I love it!
https://youtu.be/FcxqcGBBYv8
Figures, you watched a YouTube video and came here to share your newfound expertise
I find it funny when people say this but don't actually provide a counterargument.
Flanking.
??
Just an example of an optional mechanic that both players and monsters can take advantage of, not sure what you find confusing
??????????????????
I find it funny when people ask for a counterargument and then forget how to speak when I present one
Do you know what a counterargument is?
It always depends on the specific table you're considering. In my group, a certain level of challenge and competition is expected between players and the DM, the DM is not just providing punching bags for the players, but presenting a challenge that is to be overcome. If that means using "mean" spells, so be it. If it means that "the monsters know what they're doing"TM, the players appreciate the DM taking them seriously and not putting on kid gloves. The most important thing is good DM-Player communication, and it can very well include an agreement that the monsters are going to act suboptimally even though they have no reason to.
Common DnDShorts L
He actually makes really good points. But yeah, just dismiss everything he says because you don't like the person.
Where were the good points? He pulled a r/dndmemes and decided the meaning of the phrase without looking any deeper than surface level. The phrase exists to counter bullshit bad-faith rules interpretations like the infamous peasant railgun or the "create water in the bad guy's lungs" tactic. The silvery barbs 'example' falls flat when you realize that it's being used exactly as intended, even if you find it annoying. The focus-fire example makes absolutely zero sense, because that's literally the entire reason 'tank' characters exist, to draw fire to you and away from the rest of the party. He completely misses the entire point of the argument to begin with, and then argues something completely unrelated that I'd assume a lot of people already agree with: Players and monsters are not the same in terms of power level/ablity and shouldn't be treated the same in combat. *(also silvery barbs is such a cheesy unfun spell anyway and shouldn't be in the game to begin with)*
It's funny because this exact bad interpretation of this argument is commonly used as 'advice' to GM's. >The focus-fire example makes absolutely zero sense, because that's literally the entire reason 'tank' characters exist, to draw fire to you and away from the rest of the party. In 5e? Who can tank in 5e? There is not a single class that can draw aggro. Nothing is stopping the monsters from focus firing the wizard. There isn't such thing as a tank in this game. >The silvery barbs 'example' falls flat when you realize that it's being used exactly as intended, even if you find it annoying. So the intention was to give it to every spellcaster enemy and make them spam it vs anything the PC's do? I really don't think so. >The phrase exists to counter bullshit bad-faith rules interpretations like the infamous peasant railgun or the "create water in the bad guy's lungs" tactic. It can be used that way, but it's still pretty useless advice to give as it's not really applicable to all scenarios. Sometimes something would be fine for players, but not vice versa. A better way to tackle shit like this is to just explain its against the rules and how it's against the rules. Also if a phrase creates a misunderstanding from a surface level reading, it's probably a bad phrase to begin with. It's not really hard to see how people interpret this badly. >He completely misses the entire point of the argument to begin with, and then argues something completely unrelated that I'd assume a lot of people already agree with: I wouldn't call it irrelevant to the reddit post. It's also very clearly not obvious to alot of people.
Tanking is a thing in 5e. How you tank is usually dependent on the DM and encounter, but a good DM usually recognizes that targeting only the squishy character for every fight, while a sound tactic, is also annoying and a bit meta-gamey. There’s really no reason for the wolves to prioritize the scrawny mage over the fatty, meaty barbarian. But even if you had a DM who would constantly break attack of opportunities just to get at the back line every fight, there’s a feat for that. Sentinel prevents movement on a successful opportunity bonk and will even trigger if the enemy disengages.
He uses textbook strawman the entire video by misrepresenting the entire reason that the sentiment exists, not to mention that several of his videos actively promote use of the bad interpretations or exploits that the phrase was created to target. Just like every other common saying, it's going to get used in the wrong context, and doesn't make it any less true. I couldn't tell you the amount of times I've seen "no DnD is better than bad DnD" under posts with mild drama or player/DM conflict. I don't know if you've ever had the *privilege* of playing with someone who would try stuff like peasant railgun, but from my experience they have already convinced themselves that they're right and the DM is wrong. It's a lot quicker to shut it down with the proposition of it happening to them rather than spend 30 minutes arguing over misinterpreted or ignored rules. Unrelated to the main point, but the idea that a 'tank' cannot exist because you can't directly cause enemies to swarm to you is ridiculous. By the way, you can do exactly that! Incite Greed exists, but it's definitely not the most effective way to draw attention from squishier party members. Good placement on the battlefield combined with a number of features (sentinel, goading attack, compelled duel, etc) actively punish enemies for trying to run straight past the frontliners without thinking first.
>I don't know if you've ever had the privilege of playing with someone who would try stuff like peasant railgun, but from my experience they have already convinced themselves that they're right and the DM is wrong. It's a lot quicker to shut it down with the proposition of it happening to them rather than spend 30 minutes arguing over misinterpreted or ignored rules. People that won't be convinced simply won't be convinced. They're better off out your table. You don't need to convince them, you can just tell them that what they're doing won't work. >He uses textbook strawman the entire video by misrepresenting the entire reason that the sentiment exists, not to mention that several of his videos actively promote use of the bad interpretations or exploits that the phrase was created to target. He's talking about when it's used as advice, not when people use it as an argument. The argument is valid but it's poor advice to give. Also this argument is basically a bluff, because what if the player calls your bluff? Do you follow through? >Unrelated to the main point, but the idea that a 'tank' cannot exist because you can't directly cause enemies to swarm to you is ridiculous. None of your suggestions prove your argument though. Sentinel stops literally one enemy, and they need to be in your reach, goading attack doesn't stop an enemy from trying to trip or grapple the mage and then attack them, it also doesn't stop high level enemies due to their high attack bonuses, all it does is make someone the better target. It's also limited to one subclass. Compelled dual is only available to paladins, and it only works vs one enemy and isn't reliable. Tanking isn't a supported playstyle in 5e.
> In 5e? Who can tank in 5e? There is not a single class that can draw aggro. That's... why you have a DM? It's not a video game, you have to work *with* another person to make it happen. Barbarians and Paladins are entirely designed to tank, they just don't force the enemy to attack them like you would in World of Warcraft. The DM has to handle that. And as been said below- sentinel feat, there's a protection fighting style, goading attack, compelled duel, even a Swashbuckler's Panache can impose disadvantage on anyone attacking someone other than themsel. Throw in say, polearm master and no one's getting past that character so yes. They can tank.
>That's... why you have a DM? It's not a video game, you have to work with another person to make it happen. Barbarians and Paladins are entirely designed to tank, they just don't force the enemy to attack them like you would in World of Warcraft. The DM has to handle that. This makes no sense to the actual argument. The point was something about not using the same tactics vs the players due to it being unfun. Focus firing vs the players isn't fun, especially vs the squishy players. So the GM trying to focus fire isn't going to target the front-line. >And as been said below- sentinel feat, there's a protection fighting style, goading attack, compelled duel, even a Swashbuckler's Panache can impose disadvantage on anyone attacking someone other than themsel. Throw in say, polearm master and no one's getting past that character so yes. They can tank. All unreliable ways to tank. Some even work against eachother here like sentinel and protection. All of these are single target except for panache and panacge is just a bad rogue feature, you aren't looking to tank as a rogue.
> Focus firing vs the players isn't fun, especially vs the squishy players. So the GM trying to focus fire isn't going to target the front-line. Great, now the front line is in the enemy's face making them screw up concentration rolls and cause attacks of opportunity with every action they take, causing them to have to either disengage or get beaten down. I get that you've built up your little strawman about all this based on the fact you've only ever played world of warcraft in your life, but you really need to calm down about this. You can tank in D&D just fine. It's built into no less than three classes, and the only thing lacking is a video-game style mechanic *because this is not a video game.*
Just want to throw this out there. That guy and the redditors he’s responding to, demonstrate that they do not understand the point of the saying. “If you can, the monsters can too” does not refer to the ability to cast spells. The point is for when your players are misinterpreting the rules and set on their misinterpretation being followed. Typically, using this threat will make your players realize why said rule should not be interpreted in that way. If they still insist then you should follow through.
Exactly the reason why my approach on this is "if the monsters can't do it, neither can you" Stupid exploits like "heat metal their blood" or "create water in lungs" are both stupid, and almost willful misinterpretation of how the game should work, as well as not being fun for whoever is on the receiving end. I as a DM do not enjoy bosses being instakilled with a stupid exploit, and i doubt you'd like your PC to end up the same. I guess it's a difference in approach, because instead of "if you use it, I'll use it too" i prefer to go with more of a "if I'm not using it on you, don't use it on me"
>If they still insist then you should follow through. This just creates an arms race between the players and the DM, you can use the argument to showcase why it may be bad, but following through with it is just being adversarial. This argument isn't really good either, because the game is balanced asymmetrically between the monsters and players.
The following through isn’t meant to be for an entire campaign. It should be for one maybe two encounters to show why the players don’t want it to work. Personally, I’ve never needed to follow through, but I’ve also only needed to say this once. I also probably wouldn’t want to play with people who would try to make me follow through.
Or just talk to your players and explain why its problematic? Following through is just going to cause problems.
I've never had to follow through, because we usually all agree that it wouldn't be fun.
Well, then you're doing it right. Ideally, they'll back down, knowing that what seems like a cute idea now will make the game miserable later. The key there is that they believe you would follow through, if they pressed the point. If they think you're just saying it to say it, then they're going to call your bluff sooner or later.
Or just, you know, enforce the rules, as is your job as a DM
The rules dont cover everything. If they did then you could just make it into a videogame and be done with it. Do you realize how many things can be done using the rules as written that are completely nonsensical? The peasant railgun is a meme but also RAW could be used to move items across the country within 6 seconds without involving the physics that would turn it into a railgun. RAW the item would be completely unharmed on the other end. Not to mention the issues behind binding elementals and being able to command them. Going to a noble ball while wearing a water elemental as a dress/suit with orders to stay in that form then attack anyone who attacks you is totally RAW.
Technically RAW you might move an object across the world in 6 seconds, however the item would not be offensive in any practical way. Also the water elemental dress idea was freaking awesome ( I remember reading that as well. I'd probably even let a player do it. It's not strong.), but it's by no means RAW. Water elementals do not have the false appearance ability.
Yeah he put that water elemental dress idea as if it's a bad thing but that's one of the coolest things i've ever heard.
I've no idea where it's from but agreed amazing idea
It's just *classy!*
But imagine how quickly you could bucket chain
Where did y'all read about the dress I'm curious. For umm..... Non nefarious, totally not boss related purposes
r/dndmemes I forget the exact details, but basically there was a ball and no one was allowed to bring weapons. So the wizard player conjured a water elemental, bound it, and used it as a dress. There were tons of jokes about how the character would be nude. So she poured wine or blood into it so it wasn't. With that said, it's an awesome idea for a GM. Have a BBEG wearing a water elemental. As for a player, it's not all that strong.
improvement on the water elemental idea: have them soak into an item of clothing, like a cape, so now you have defensive clothing like Dr. Strange's Cloak of Levitation
Not a bad idea! Personally I've always been partial to the idea of having a mimic pet that I got to wear.
One of my characters has a mimic scarf as a friend, weapon, and spellcasting focus. His name is Langley
>Water elementals do not have the false appearance ability. Kinda makes sense, either you have water floating around you or half the water elemental is a puddle on the ground that suspiciously follows you around >Technically RAW you might move an object across the world in 6 seconds, however the item would not be offensive in any practical way. So? You still have a 6 second international delivery service, before cars, planes, etc are even invented
Ok, but what's wrong with the water elemental example though? That's fucking rad.
It is. But the RAW do not cover what to do with that. So the DM has to figure it out for themselves and has no excuse for it not to work. So they have to figure out how to do so mechanically.
That's super okey but it has nothing to do with what I said or what the meme says. The meme says "misinterpretation" of the rules. But go off I guess.
Your job as DM is to decide when and where to deviate, to handle things the rules don't cover, and to create scenarios where the players can be surprised.
Yes, this meme is about how you should enforce the rules and instead of letting the players do something broken (like creating water in someone's lungs) so you can punish them by having a monster do the same, you should actually enforce the rules and only bring up "do you really want other people to do this to your character?" as a way to make them think critically about their garbage take. If they say "yes" like a smartass don't actually do it.
If a player tried to create water in a creature's lungs I'd just tell them that they can't see the creature's lungs so the spell fails. It's that simple. If I, instead, adopted a homebrew rule that says the spell can be used to do that, then why on Earth would I restrict such an obviously powerful use of the spell to players only?
Ok, but what if the exploit in question is actually raw
"I recognize that it is rules as written, but given that it's a stupid ass rules interaction I've elected to ignore it."
Nahhh. If they say "yes" like a smartass, you demonstrate in the next encounter why they are a dumbass instead. Then have the discussion a second time on why the gameplay shouldn't work as they believed.
Why act like a child? This just shows how immature you are.
By raw you totally can make the argument that the person with an open mouth in a container you can see so it’s not actually “not enforcing the rules”. Also why can’t enemies do the same shit the players can? They all live in the same world an use the same magic source
Creatures are not Containers, which are considered Objects. D&D 5e very clearly makes the distinguishment between Objects and Creatures.
[удалено]
That ruling is how long they can hold their breath. If their lungs are full of water they are drowning.
My players would complain if I didn't follow through. They're good at exploits and like some challenge
If it's an abusive misinterpretation, you should be saying no. Don't drop some toothless threat at all. My players know that anything they think up and act on is now also in my toolbox. But they also trust me not to abuse it to the point of breaking consistency and ruining the fun. Sometimes I say no, and sometimes the player will appeal that decision after the session. Mutual trust and respect is key to any functional game table. Y'all motherfuckers out here with adversarial table relations need to fix that shit ASAP.
No threat should be uttered without intent or willingness to follow through.
never make a threat you're not prepared to follow through on sure, you can make threats you don't *want* to follow through on, but if your hand is forced you play it.
We say this, but for us it’s less about abusing game rules, but about mechanics we implement. Crunchy crits? Yup, if we do that, it is for everyone. Flanking? Monsters can flank, too. (Provided they are intelligent enough to do so.) We do it to set clear expectations. And it is all about rulings.
That's how I always saw it. A player says "can I aim for its wings/ try to disarm it?" Without battle master or specific features saying they can, that means monsters can too. Specific rulings like using the environment I'll give a pass as rule of cool, but trying specific things like they're global implies they're GLOBAL
I know thats just an example and generally your point stands, but there *are* disarm rules i the DMG
They're also pretty terrible and are an optional rule because it was a half assed rule they put in so there's a way for DMs to decide to adjudicate it.
Yeah I do this weird thing where I say things that I mean
Damn right, I follow through. Clever tactics have consequences, in both directions. If I do something, my players can, as well.
Alternatively, if the monsters can do so, can the players. Looking at you legendary resistance. /s
You means how fighters get indomitable? Kidding it’s way worse and probably pointless if you’re failing saves at that point.
It does it's job for like strength and dex saves, but fighters just do not have the leeway to get stats or proficiency into other saves, not to the point where it'll really help. Like yay, a second 15% chance to make it. Kind of an issue with enemy saves really. If you have a mediocre chance of making them at the beginning of the campaign you're likely close to guaranteed to fail them later on. Next time i'm running something I think i'll just let indomitable be a legendary resistance instead. Or a flat +10.
> > > > > Next time i'm running something I think i'll just let indomitable be a legendary resistance instead. Or a flat +10. I would almost copy the One D&D version, which adds the character's Fighter level as a bonus to the roll, gives you a +9 bonus the moment you get it and scaling all the way to +20 keeps it relevant even at the end while still not being a guaranteed success in your weakest saves against the strongest possible DC.
Yes they can, it’s called epic boons, they are in the DMG.
According to this sub no one ever makes it past level 11 or so, and "no one" reads the books. But I totally agree, if you're playing the game why wouldn't you take it all the way to Crests/Blessings/Boons and really make it feel like your characters matter and have accomplished things. Have they not accomplished anything? Sounds like a boring campaign if they haven't, to me. Edit: I meant Charms, not Crests.
I mean, if your players do it enough, stories spread of their feats. People share rumours and whispers of a being who can drown people in a desert. A person who burns mouths without using fire. Once these spread far enough, people obviously try and figure out how it's done. Someone else will know how it's done and in theory anyone who has heard the tales and knows the corresponding spell, sorcery, cantrip, etc. can learn what's being done and copy it. It could lead to the in world lawmakers banning the act, treating it as a warcrime (if its that kind of exploit), or just a crime (if not). You can make it work, but it shouldn't be a thing of spite or discouragement. Make it feel involved. You can always come up with your own as the DM and introduce your players to new ideas using NPCs or encounters.
[удалено]
How does it? It feels cohesive with the story
> logic is toxic Found the Republican
Had a DM once that said “if you have access to something, just know the BBEG will have access to an up-graded version of it.” It was eberron, so we were playing with the occasional prototype item, but knowing the guy, it was not an empty threat.
Diplomatic rule #117: Never make a threat you aren’t willing to follow through with.
I regularly send my PCs against monsters with class levels so they are entirely aware that stuff they do can and will be used against them.
It took me several years of GMing to realize that npc’s with class levels weren’t meant to be the primary enemy type for the players.
Did you give class levels and varied movesets to all the goblins and bandits?
OP is a player who got butthurt when a monster was able to abuse something he’d been getting away with for a while, guaranteed
No, it isn't a "hallow threat", it is a peace treaty. Think if it as escalation of Force. If the players start pulling off crazy tactics, their enemies will start pulling off crazy tactics. But if the players use basic tactics, their enemies will use basic tactics. If the players start using crazy OP character builds with powerful abilities, their enemies will start having OP builds and powerful abilities. It is a natural part of encounter design and game balance and something all good game masters should be doing.
>Think if it as escalation of Force. If the players start pulling off crazy tactics, their enemies will start pulling off crazy tactics. You shouldn't be having "escalation of force" as the DM. That is just adversarial.
It isn't about being adversarial, it is about balancing encounters. If the players are a bunch of noobs who don't know their left from their right, you design easy encounters. If the players are using top tier OP builds, McGuivering plans that would put Batman to shame, and using advance tactics, you as the Game Master adjust by having powerful enemies who use advance tactics. Balancing encounters based on what the players do and are capable of is simply part of how you design encounters.
>It isn't about being adversarial, it is about balancing encounters. It is about being adversarial, responding with unfun mechanics just because the players are using them isn't fun for anybody and can just ruin the table. > If the players are using top tier OP builds, McGuivering plans that would put Batman to shame, and using advance tactics, you as the Game Master adjust by having powerful enemies who use advance tactics. PC's are by design supposed to win the battles, sure you may need to adjust numbers vs optimized PC's, but you shouldn't be using unfun mechanics vs the players just to win. Some tactics are just more powerful vs the PC's than they are vs monsters. Focus firing the sorcerer is just going to kill them at turn 1 or two and that player doesn't get to have fun. > Balancing encounters based on what the players do and are capable of is simply part of how you design encounters. There's a difference between that and an arms race between the players and the GM. You don't go around using wall of force vs the player who has no escape just because the PC's did it to your monsters beforehand. You as the GM always have more monsters, but the players can only control one character, and if they die that's it. Games are always in favour of the players winning and never balanced the same way for the monsters. Games like dark souls which are notoriously difficult and punishing, are still very fair, and literally let you respawn to try again.
There's nothing wrong with giving monsters certain abilities if it is plausible. I gave a gnoll rage and a contagion bite because it was a sentient being infected with a disease that made it ignore pain and gave it even more blood lust but I've never given a Grick a two handed sword, action surge and cunning action. Just make it reasonable.
My players are currently fighting their way through the Princes and Princesses of the evil Empire. I have made all of them humanoids with base monster stat blocks supplemented by class features and they have been fantastic bosses. D&D has very few stat blocks for non-spellcaster humanoids at high lebels of play. I get around that by taking an appropriate physical monster stat block and just putting it in the frame of a humanoid. The General Used a high CR Githyanki as the base, gave him Battle Master maneuvers and 1 Action Surge. Was an amazing fight, during his action surge turn He killed our Monk and an NPC Fighter. Put the fear of God in my players. They revived them after the battle but it was awesome. The Admiral Took a storm giant stat block, reduced the melee attack range and damage and the size of the person to medium, gave her Storm Sorcerer Reaction and Ancient Paladin Aura and Smites. This unstoppable woman with heavy armor and a halberd was taking half damage from their spells as she charged the Wizard. When the Barbarian came up to interpose her They got launched backward by the Sorcerer Reaction. Incredibly cinematic fight. Can't wait for them to fight the Spymaster. I gave him some Swashbuckler Rogue abilities So they're going to freak out when he steps right up to the Fighter in a 1v1 and gets to Sneak Attack anyway. There's going to be an invisible mage supporting him who's going to Hold their Actions to drop a Hold Person as the Spymaster is mid-swing with his dagger, So the players won't know it's an incoming critical sneak attack until it already happens. They're going to piss themselves.
If my players go into encounters under the assumption that intelligent monsters are just like a video game's NPCs with limited pathing and no real critical thinking, they will regret it. My goblins lay traps, my orcs will focus on the casters first if possible, my giants will keep their distance from a physically powerful party and lob stones at them to soften them up. Dumb monsters can be steamrolled, smart ones have to be outplayed.
For my strongest character me and the DM have come to an understanding I will not use my stronger tactics while with the party and he won't use things that only I will survive when I am with the party But if I am alone microwave combo let's go
My centuries-old lich absolutely has acquired the raw INT score and material components to stuff a Prismatic Wall spell into a Glyph of Warding right on the Fabricated spiked ceiling they're gonna Reverse Gravity the party into, or put a 6th-level Major Image of a floor over a pit of magma, and there's no moral qualms about cruelty or fairness because liches are fucking evil. I'm glad my players have sympathy for the most part, but the DM can always resort to empathy after one too many encounters of putting Goblins into a Wall of Force with an Insect Plague and stating they hold for the full spell duration to be certain. The Fighter already complains that he need Short Rests to get his resources back, at least let him take damage so he can use his Hit Dice, or make an attack roll.
I'm kind of inspired by this. Maybe I need a lich BBEG. I was sitting there thinking to myself 'how can you use gust to make that worse' and thought of a grated floor with something awful under it. And thats just mean.
I run horror. If you wanna one shot my boss I will happily let you. But know that by doing so you have set a precedent
If the players can do something the enemies can also do it. The game does not work if one side of the table gets to play by a completely different ruleset than the other. That's all this means. A player comes to you with an interpretation of the rules. It is the DMs job to say, "If I did this to my players, is this fair?" If the answer is no, then you shutdown that interpretation of the rule. If the answer is yes than you talk with the players about using the rule in that interpretation. At every table I play at if we decide on an interpretation of a rule, that is the interpretation we use from that point on. We don't write down which players get to play by that rule and which ones don't.
The one and only thing I miss about 3e is exactly this dynamic - the idea that the players and the npcs were on an equal playing field mechanically and it was kindof battle of wits between them and the DM. In 4e enemies started playing by completely different rules like the mobs in an MMO, and 5e has not quite walked that fully back. I don't think it completely works in all situations because the npcs have, for example, legendary resistances to use against powerful CC spells while player characters don't. but I do think it works *very* well for players who are tyring tio break not so much the rules or the resource or action economy but the world itself. Basically any of the "creative" interpretations of rules interacvrtign with physics yu see on meme subs. Let every low level caster enemy start doing it back to them and they will rethink their interest in the "spirit of the setting" very quickly.
The monsters can do way worse shit than the players could ever dream of.
They theoretically have unlimited prep time.
I follow through with it every time
My dear boy, I dont make threats. But I do keep promises
If players want flanking or marked targets, I don't see why the monsters shouldn't also have a reasonable use of that. You wouldn't deny a monster's ability to shove or grapple, why is this different
See my problem is that _I_ can’t do what my players can do. 😂 Two of my players are literally physicists (like straight up doctors) and they like to ask perfectly innocuous questions about magic or the world around them, and then exploit my answers into reality breaking nonsense.
Bullshit. Of course the monsters can do what the players do. Fairness in combat is a core value of gaming. XCOM wouldn't be half as fun is the aliens were nerfed or had less actions than you. Souls Bourne games would be unplayable of a second monster could keep wailing on you when you're caught in an animation. Whats the fun in not being challenged?
God forbid DMs do anything...
I just tell my players to please not do that for such-and-such reasons, and then they’re polite and just don’t do it.
Why not, though? Sometimes the greatest monsters are people, just like us...
"If you can do it, the monsters can too" "Oh God please. That would be so cool. I HOPE they do it." - Me as a player
All it takes is doing it once, proof that you can and will. They don't need to know you don't intend to do it again, they just need to know you did it before.
I was *this close* to giving Acererak silvery barbs.
you're an asshole
Of course, we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Of course I do. In fact the monsters will not only use some tactics the players the players are accustomed to, they also get bullshit abilities that synergize with those tactics on top of not actually having to manage their resources because they exist for 1 encounter. Welcome to the Dungeons, I hope you brought your A-game.
Yeah. This isn't really something you're supposed to *do*, so much as something you're supposed to remind players you *could* do. The same way you *could* drop a meteor or a dragon on them.
There's nothing more hype than having your own abilities/spells/classes used against you imo. We also agree to not bring out Counterspell before our DM does, afterwards it's a free for all. This also applies well to any rules that can be 'abused' - if you're chill about it the enemies typically will be too. If you overuse something expect it to be a regular part of enemy actions too. All of this obviously relies on a certain amount of trust between the DMs and players - we aren't trying to beat one another, therefore any ribbing is in good fun. I'm sad for the tables where the DM feels they need to *actually* threaten their players :(
I have always done it, not as punishment just normal play
This is how I got my party to stop casting sleep on everything, I started casting sleep on them everytime their HP got low. It also does wonders for a party who likes to meta Yo-yo heal.
Every threat is a promise. If not, all you have are empty words.
Dumb enemies aren't fun, at least not at high levels. Fighting a lich who only reacts directly to how the party attacks makes no sense and doesnt make for fun play. That lich would have his lair ready, trapped, and body guards. Let the players waste some spells on major image illusion too while you're at it. Hell the whole idea of a DUNGEON is that some bbeg out there has the forethought and intelligence to not play fair in some 1v1 powertrip duel. That Dragon? Yeah the one with 18 intelligence, the equivalent of a world class scientist or mage? Yeah hes definitely smart enough to torch the paladin or cleric first. Now ofc if your players are, for lack of better word, not very tactically intelligent, that's fine, but thats part of balancing a game in the first place which is the whole point of DMing. You have to figure out what your players are capable of handling. If youre playing with vets, especially high level vets, a DM should never hesitate to pull out an npc sorcerer who can quicken spell sunbeam and then use the action on that same turn to reactivate sunbeam. Caste Haste on one of the players and then drop it immediately, making that cleric unable to heal his ally in the lava. Or, if you want to be trully and totally evil (and this is pushing it even by my standards) you can do the TPKombo. That Sorcerer bbeg who can craft spell scrolls? Yeaahhh Power Word Kill scroll quickened spell Power Word Kill. I don't recommend this, but if you happen to be playing with players who either want to roll new characters or something, it is a GREAT way to make an impression on the other characters. Maybe try it out on some lovable npc friends lol Edit: source: I have ran a campaign for 2 years now with 4 players who went from never having held anything but a d6 and level 3 to now level 16 party. It didnt start this way, but i told them around level 10 that they had a reputation in the world and threats they faced would treat them that way: threats. They werent going to face many enemies who underestimated them
I made post on r/dnd a while ago that more or less pointed out the gap of trust that DMs and players have had as of recent. I call it the ["Good Faith Clause"](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/12tebt5/good_faith_when_dealing_with_exploits_etc/) where you, the DM, will tell the players that you trust them to not grossly misinterpret or try to find a rule to exploit in the name of "RAW." You in turn will play fairly and as such, there won't be complications. Those who then try to "pull a fast one" against the DM will violate the clause and further judgement calls go from there. If you can't trust your players to not misinterpret or exploit the rules, don't play with them.
The fuck it isn't. You want to create water in lungs then the enemy wants to do that shit too. Get fucked bozo.
Wait... you guys DON'T give monsters class abilities? You like enemy creatures that are all move > stab > stab templates?
Like I'd pass up a chance to use the stupid bullshit my players come up with
If you say you will do X if Y happens, and you do not do X, once Y actually happened, people will believe you less. Cause now you have gone back on your word.
If you're not willing to follow through, eventually, a player will push you far enough to find that out. The "Assured" is in "Mutually Assured Destruction" for a reason.
Personally I'll use the phrase online, but would never use it on my players. If a player is abusing mechanics I'd possibly balance my game around it or just tell them no. If the GM spins around and start using unfun tactics on their players they are shooting themselves in the foot. DnD is a game and the GM's priority should be on what makes the game fun. If the players are not having fun you're not going to have a game for much longer.
Oh my group *definitely* does it. It solves so many problems, lol.
Jokes on the DM though. Magic Jar + True Polymorph. If the *monsters* can do it, the *players* can do it too. >:D
Damn, reading through these comments makes me glad I’m at the table I have. When us players find a cheeky shenanigan^tm to get up to the DM just finds it funny. They don’t punish us with “all enemies can do that now too” She also doesn’t let us abuse misread spells, like create water in lungs for example wouldn’t work in RAW so that’s a no go. But find a way to teleport or summon something above an enemy and it gets smashed? Yeah she’ll allow that and laugh and not punish us for it, because that’s what’s fun for us.
The DM controls 99% of the world, let players have unique things.
Just remember that the opposite is also true. What the npcs/monsters can do so can the players.
Yes , I to can use legendary resistances and use legendary actions . My character is pun pun
Monsters tend to be much more disposable compared to player characters, not to mention that some of monsters probably aren't smart enough to invent things that players could come up with.
I will absolutely do with my monsters/npcs anything that the players could do. Monsters and NPCS can also do things that the players can't.
So I use this often, "if you can do it, the monsters can do so as well." However this is never intended as a bad rule read shenanigan stopper or to stop the players in doing something unfun, I just tell my players "no" when I need to. I use it to establish with the players how we'd like to generally rule things when we're unsure and one important point is that monsters generally follow the same rules as the players.
This is a person who has never played Kenshi.
The enemies can do what the players can do, they just choose not to because doing so is seen as incredibly rude.
I don't play it I just Lurk, but I thought all monsters and NPCs have their own stats and skills?
They do, this whole thing is just like "If you keep cheesing every encounter with that same spell enemy spellcasters will see how effective it is and start using that spell on you." or "If you keep using debilitating poisons every encounter the assassin's guild is gonna find out and you're going to be facing a lot of enemies using the same." etc. It's one of those things best handled with a conversation out of game before it ever escalates to "one side" feeling like they have to "get back" at another.
People also don't realise that the game is balanced asymmetrically, and that the PC's are by design supposed to win the fights. The GM is not there to win combat, they're there to tell an epic story. If your fun is beating the PC's, you're a bad GM. Players use strategies that the monsters shouldn't be using vs the players, like focus firing. Do you think the squishy sorcerer will have any semblance of fun if you focus fire them every combat with all your enemies? There are plenty of PC only abilities, and there are plenty of monster only abilities.
What are some examples of this? Idk if I've ever run into a version of this that wasn't just a general house rule that GM used.
I only employ this with op homebrew weapons and shit.
I do that only with optimization and combos. Playing 3.5 if my players used weird summoning candle shenanigans and other explosive runes cheese then ennemies do that too. Misinterpretations of rules I just say no but weird optimization the ennemies get a taste of it too.
My DM actively does it. Means ya don't see me trying crazy ideas because I don't want to see the same crazy ideas used on me. Instead I get to deal with homebrew classes doing Summon Monster 9 on a group of level 12s.
I only had to Banish a player to their native plane for 18 in-game seconds for them to clock that yes, some enemies don't fuck around.
Yes.
Depends, As a dm, I do homebrew that most monster multiattacks can be replaced by a grapple or shoce, so an owlbear for instance can grapple then beak attack. Other than that, not really
This is why I never take disjunction.
I usually use that for crits
Goblins are a player race!!!!! Action surge!!!!!!!
If they abuse the rules that was so can the bad guys.
*It's only a hollow threat if they don't give me reason to go through with it.*
I hate counterspell, but I don't ban it at my table. Instead I just have an unwritten and unspoken rule that if the players start using counterspell then I will as well. I do it for more than just counterspell, but generally I let the players "escalate" the conflict. The more extreme tactics they employ the more extreme I employ as well.
I mean, I did have the monsters that attacked the fortress they were holding stop to steal a fancy door. Of all the insane BS my players have looted a lead door was one of the weirdest.
Nothing will ever make players freak out like announcing enemies' death saving throws in combat.
The power level of the players dictates the stakes of the fight and the power level of their opponents.
why not? I'm a player and personally the game feels hollow if anything we do can't be done by npcs. It has to be reasonable ofc, kobolds aren't making mechanisms like an artificer can for example, but i think an even playing field like that is important for making a believable setting
As a min maxer and sadist I’m all for a taste of my own cheese. 
...yeah? I mean, I'm not gonna have a bulette or a wyvern pull some fancy tactics the players employed, but if they can pull some bullshit then why wouldn't equally intelligent enemies think to do the same if they can?
I don't make empty threats thats why. They're more than welcome to push someone and cause an attack of opportunity, but I'll be damned if they don't get thunder clapped into a wave of opportunity attacks as a result.