You're viewing a single thread.
The players could have expected this: they've noticed that the dragon has lair and legendary actions. It's clearly dangerous, and it's smart. The dragon presumably needed line of sight to the caster, an unused reaction, and had to be within 60 feet.
BUT the DM hadn't used the spell before. So the players don't realize Counterspell is a thing baddies do. I dunno.
In my current campaign, my caster is really engaged. He watches for enemy casters to use their reactions. He tracks line of sight and distance. But he's been Counterspelled often enough to know it's necessary.
(This is my table, I don't expect others to enjoy this style of play, but as a DM, my final battles will not use mechanics the players aren't familiar with)
It also seems kind of spiteful? Revivify seems like an odd thing to counterspell, much better to stop a big damage spell or heal. Revivify only revives with 1 hp, so a strong breeze would put the barbarian back down. The party would have to commit multiple actions to healing him up while he runs for his life.
Instead, one of the players basically has to sit out for the finale of the campaign. Assuming the party succeeds, he can’t conclude the story with everyone else and the player just zones out during the epilogue.
I think a good twist mechanic is one you can react and adapt to. If the dragon countered a random damage spell, the players are introduced to the twist in a less consequential way and can now adjust their strategy to the new information. Here, they are punished for something they didn’t even know could happen (unless they have meta knowledge from other campaigns, which you should never assume) and can’t do anything except shrug and accept that their friend is dead.
my final battles will not use mechanics the players aren't familiar with
This seems kinda boring.
I pretty much expect a big bad to pull some off the wall crap I'm not expecting, otherwise what makes them big & bad?
The morale shattering of getting a revival countered would make the party come up with something new, instead of trying their same formula over & over. Remember the magic mcguffin they've been saving for a 'situation'? This is exactly the time to break out the one-shot items!
There's still going to be all the standard lair actions, legendary actions, etc.
I think the best is when you're exposed to mechanics one at a time, acolytes with one aspect of the BBEG's power, some creature with another, a foot soldier with a surprisingly formidable weapon, etc. Then, the finale combines them all. That way the experience is novel and challenging, but the players aren't blindsided when it matters.
Yeah but not everyone playing D&D knows all of the rules and spells and everything else, in fact, it's often more fun when players have less knowledge and get to experience things first hand and have a degree of mystery to them.
Hard agree. My statement applies to my players at my table. I know them and they know the type of combat I run.
5e isn't very crunchy. I think I would enjoy a more technical system that has more interaction between mechanics, but this is near the top-end of my table's level of engagement. And we're happy here.
As a player I'm constantly trying to derail the game and take the story in an unforseen direction. As someone that's looking for surprises and not trying to stay on the rails, I totally appreciate and applaud the idea of using mechanics I'm not familiar with. If I were that barbarian, I'd be very excited to have died like that.
I totally appreciate and applaud the idea of using mechanics I'm not familiar with. If I were that barbarian, I'd be very excited to have died like that.
As a DM, I would enjoy that. But since I put PCs in scenarios where there's a high likelihood of failure, I don't want them to feel like the physics of the campaign has suddenly changed during the last battle.
I've tossed out new mechanics (doom trackers, Blades in the Dark style heists) mid campaign, but I'd prefer not to do that when we're coming to a conclusion.
Yea, throwing a new mechanic at players during something conclusive seems like an I Wanna Be The Guy kinda masocore move.
I mean it can go be super successful (or successfully unsuccessful) but the potential for bitterness about getting completely blindsided seems too high to me.
Thank you for teaching me the word "masocore".
And everything you say is why I don't do it.
I love I Wanna Be The Guy and I love a DM that plays dirty and blindsides the players. If I die I die and I'll just make a new character. I'm a good loser.