PDA

View Full Version : Now my players know the importance of taking shifts



Ormur
2010-07-17, 10:07 PM
My players recently earned themselves the animosity of the thieves guild in town. They took certain precautions in light of this, like all sleeping in the same room at the inn and having the meatshield sleep by the door. However they neglected to take shifts sleeping. The assassin that was inevitably sent to kill them tried opening the door but managed to discover that it was blocked without waking anybody (a very easy wisdom save for the PC). He then simply went out again climbed up to the second story window and shadow jaunted through it. I didn't realize how easy it is to kill people with a coup de grace but the fort save against it probably needed a natural 20. He easily killed the first person and then shadow jaunted out again before the rest woke up properly (I presume he refreshed the manoeuvres while in the room).

Sleeping really is a horrible condition. As a factotum assassin he could easily make all his move silently checks because the party took a -10 penalty and with an automatic critical and the damage from cunning insight he did 29 points of damage meaning that the fort save was 39. With all of them sleeping it was only a matter of getting into the room without them waking up.

Thus a 10th level character was killed in his sleep surrounded by other 10th level characters.

I don't think they'll forget to take shifts sleeping again, or casting alarm, any of which would have made it a lot harder to kill them.

gibbo88
2010-07-17, 10:19 PM
Well done on that one. My group tends to always have people take shifts on watches, even if we are in a city or something like that - it just makes sense. I think that too many level appropriate encounters have made your group soft and they forgot rule 5 - there is always a bigger fish.

Greenish
2010-07-17, 10:52 PM
Oh Rope Trick, where art thou?

Ormur
2010-07-17, 10:55 PM
Oh, it was perfectly level appropriate but even if the assassin had been of a lower level the right build would still have killed them in sleep quite easily.

They said that taking shifts was something that just seemed appropriate out in the wild when you're sleeping in tents by a fire but hotels in rogue infested towns are no less dangerous.

Jack_Simth
2010-07-17, 11:03 PM
That right there is one of the reasons for getting familiars: Night watch.

Especially the Bat, with Blindsense-20....

Ormur
2010-07-17, 11:18 PM
Replaced for some ACF by the sorcerer. :smallbiggrin:

Greenish
2010-07-17, 11:20 PM
Only pathetic meatbags need to sleep (or eat, or breathe).

Tengu_temp
2010-07-17, 11:45 PM
Lose your character without being able to do anything about it, because you took several precautions in your sleep but forgot about a single, particular one. FUN!

I'd ask my players "are you sure you're not forgetting something?" or hint that they should take shifts in another way.

OzymandiasVolt
2010-07-17, 11:49 PM
Keeping someone awake at all times is kind of the FIRST thing any threatened party should be doing, Tengu. It's not just some tiny thing they overlooked that the DM unfairly took advantage of.

Tengu_temp
2010-07-17, 11:53 PM
That's why I'd hint they should take shifts. Sometimes you forget about the simplest stuff, even though it's something your character would never forget about. Why punish the player for that?

Fortuna
2010-07-18, 01:26 AM
Because at tenth level, death hurts but isn't permanent anyway? It's not losing the character, it's taking a blow because you made a mistake.

Xyk
2010-07-18, 01:31 AM
I could see that being quite a humorous morning for the DM, if he did it the fun way.

DM-"Okay, you three wake up in the morning to find your wizard dead. Several stab wounds in the neck."

Wizard- "Awwww..."

PapaNachos
2010-07-18, 01:59 AM
Just because you -can- do something to the players doesn't mean you should.

Yes, you taught them to always make someone keep watch, but why is that necessary? Does it somehow enhance their gaming experience to have someone die in their sleep? Yes its realistic, but since when was D&D ever about realism?

arrowhen
2010-07-18, 02:01 AM
Lose your character without being able to do anything about it, because you took several precautions in your sleep but forgot about a single, particular one. FUN!

I'd ask my players "are you sure you're not forgetting something?" or hint that they should take shifts in another way.

Normally, I'd be inclined to agree, but: "my players recently earned themselves the animosity of the thieves guild in town" is the operative sentence in this instance.

If it was a random guy sneaking into their room to kill someone just for the hell of it, or even an enemy deciding to hire an assassin, I think it would be a bit much. But if my character ticked off the thieves' guild and then went to sleep unprotected in their town, I'd be happy that the DM killed me off; it's a comforting reminder that actions have consequences.

Drascin
2010-07-18, 02:18 AM
That's why I'd hint they should take shifts. Sometimes you forget about the simplest stuff, even though it's something your character would never forget about. Why punish the player for that?

Pretty much my view. Sometimes, people forget about the dumbest stuff or take it for granted. So a DM probably should give them a little reminder before going around stabbing people in their beds - especially if they're playing supposedly smart characters.

If even after the reminder, they refuse to pay attention and go "eh, what could happen", then you'd be perfectly justified in killing them in their sleep. But really, a little reminder is just good courtesy.

Ranos
2010-07-18, 02:22 AM
Wow, that was a rookie mistake. Especially after pissing off an organization full of sneaky, backstabby fellows. How did your players even survive that long without taking any shifts at night ?
Did they begin play at 10th level or what ?

mucat
2010-07-18, 02:34 AM
That's why I'd hint they should take shifts. Sometimes you forget about the simplest stuff, even though it's something your character would never forget about. Why punish the player for that?
According to the players themselves, they didn't forget; they decided it wasn't necessary to sleep in shirts in the "safety" of an inn room. The consequences were perfectly fair, and make just as much sense in-game as out.


Lose your character without being able to do anything about it, because you took several precautions in your sleep but forgot about a single, particular one. FUN!
No need for the sarcasm, and no one lost their character. The assassin killed one member of a tenth-level party, and left his body with his friends. Unless this is a low-divine-magic campaign, he'll be back on his feet in no time. It's a warning to be more careful, not a game-ruining event.

Kylarra
2010-07-18, 02:37 AM
"You wake up to a bad case of 'steel in throat'."

I actually had a chance to do something similar to my players in Exalted, but since it was the first session, I took pity on them and warned them about it.

Brewdude
2010-07-18, 04:31 AM
No matter how powerful the sorcerer, a knife in the back seriously cramps his style.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-07-18, 04:43 AM
There are a few people here saying that killing someone in their sleep is mean and not fun. I don't agree with that. If there's no risk of failure, then your players may as well just declare how they succeed at everything.

Don't hold back on your players, or they'll believe they're invincible. Half the fun is succeeding despite the risk. That's why Superman isn't as cool as Batman - Batman is tough, but he's vulnerable, and that's way more exciting when he succeeds than an invulnerable super-cake-making (http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=713:why-fight-crime-when-you-can-bake-a-cake&catid=36:stupor-powers-index&Itemid=38) powers boy scout.

Player characters make enemies all the time, and for those enemies to play fair in the name of fun is ridiculous. (Unless you're running a camp '60s Batman game, of course.)
So, when your players fail to set alarms and wards on their rest spot, kill them in their sleep. When your players leave their stronghold to go off adventuring, burn it down and steal all their stuff. When their fighter gets himself flanked by several large sized rogues, kill him.

I think the OP actually held back, by not killing them all.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-18, 04:50 AM
I'm with the "He could have killed a couple other guys" group. If the player takes his victory for granted, why would he even play the character instead of writing a story about how awesome his character is?

Bharg
2010-07-18, 05:16 AM
Why didn't he kill all of them then? Wouldn't that have been a fun ending for the campaign?

PapaNachos
2010-07-18, 05:24 AM
My point isn't that you shouldn't let bad things happen to PCs. That would make for a boring game. I'm saying that you shouldn't kill them because of a small oversight. They should at least get a hint, maybe a wisdom or karma check. If they actively choose not to post a watch then its their own fault.

I've played with several terrible DM, one of which decided that time stop + delayed blast fireball made for a fun boss fight. Every time the boss got initiative someone died.

Closak
2010-07-18, 05:38 AM
My point isn't that you shouldn't let bad things happen to PCs. That would make for a boring game. I'm saying that you shouldn't kill them because of a small oversight. They should at least get a hint, maybe a wisdom or karma check. If they actively choose not to post a watch then its their own fault.

I've played with several terrible DM, one of which decided that time stop + delayed blast fireball made for a fun boss fight. Every time the boss got initiative someone died.

Sounds like something a guy i know would do for the end-boss.

Thing about the final boss of the campaign is, he is always ridiculously difficult and the chances of the players losing horribly is extremely high.

Because it's the freaking final boss.

This generally only happens with the end-boss however.
Sometimes with the really big "KICK YOUR ASS" second-in-command as well.

Then there's that goddamn Elder Evil that the players are expected to lose against if they try actually fighting it rather than running the hell away.

Psyx
2010-07-18, 05:42 AM
My point isn't that you shouldn't let bad things happen to PCs.

There has to be repercussions, or it makes a dull game. There needs to be risk. Annoying a thieves guild (I'm assuming that the party know that they did it, right?) is going to have repercussions, and so the death of a PC (a minor obstacle in D&D) for their oversight seems reasonable to me.

Aroka
2010-07-18, 05:43 AM
Because at tenth level, death hurts but isn't permanent anyway? It's not losing the character, it's taking a blow because you made a mistake.

Then why is an assassin bothering to kill them anyway? If the thieves' guild wants to cost them 5,000 gp, couldn't they just steal it? That way, not only will the PCs lose it, the thieves' guild will get it. If death is such a temporary inconvenience, why bother inflicting it to begin with?

Bharg
2010-07-18, 05:45 AM
Simple access to ressurections ruins all the fun...

Fortuna
2010-07-18, 06:03 AM
Then why is an assassin bothering to kill them anyway? If the thieves' guild wants to cost them 5,000 gp, couldn't they just steal it? That way, not only will the PCs lose it, the thieves' guild will get it. If death is such a temporary inconvenience, why bother inflicting it to begin with?

There are few warnings more noticable than dying. And the thieves' guildmight have underestimated them.

taltamir
2010-07-18, 06:06 AM
1. this should really have been a TPK.
2. after which you should have offered to "replay" it, only this time with taking basic precautions...

btw, they didn't have to take shifts, they could have used a dozen different methods to protect themselves.
For example, if they slept in a windowless room with a BARRED door (breaking the door would wake them up)
had a nocturnal familiar as one suggested
rope trick, alarm spell, alarm stone, alarming traps, sleep in shifts (as the op mentioned), slaughter the entire guild BEFORE going to sleep that night, buy a guard dog, or any of many other precautions.

the really unfair bit is that you singled out ONE player to get penalized for their collective stupidity.

Psyx
2010-07-18, 06:08 AM
Then why is an assassin bothering to kill them anyway? If the thieves' guild wants to cost them 5,000 gp, couldn't they just steal it? That way, not only will the PCs lose it, the thieves' guild will get it. If death is such a temporary inconvenience, why bother inflicting it to begin with?

Because nothing sends a message like waking up to find the bloke next to you dead?

It says 'we could have killed you, and we can kill you at any time we like.'

crazywolf
2010-07-18, 06:10 AM
maybe the title should be "now my players know not to tick off the theives guild" i dont think this was punishing the players for not sleeping in shifts i mean the assasin wouldnt have killed him if they didnt mess with the theives guild

Ormur
2010-07-18, 06:11 AM
They were perfectly aware of having pissed of the thieves and pretty sure they'd send somebody to kill them. They even jokingly expected a scry'n-die.

I didn't really expect to kill them but since their previous actions were recklessly blunt I had to have consequences. I statted an equivalent level stealthy threat to harry them for some time.

The thing is that I myself didn't realize the risks of not taking shifts at the time. Most of them are more experienced players than me and I them not taking shifts rang no alarm bells in my head so I couldn't hint at it. I just knew that an assassin was going to visit during the night and when I played him intelligently I realized that "oh, **** he's going to kill at least one of them". I didn't even look up the coup de grace rules until it happened and remembered why you don't want that to happen to your PC.

I learnt the importance of taking shifts just as well as they players. The title could just as well say "we" instead of "my players".

He didn't kill them all since I ruled that the killing of their party member was enough to wake them and start combat and we worked out a method to adjudicate actions and he used his to get away.

taltamir
2010-07-18, 06:12 AM
Because nothing sends a message like waking up to find the bloke next to you dead?

It says 'we could have killed you, and we can kill you at any time we like.'

you know what sends this message better? not waking up at all...


He didn't kill them all since I ruled that the killing of their party member was enough to wake them and start combat and we worked out a method to adjudicate actions and he used his to get away.

must have been a rookie assassin to not even cast a silence spell before he started slitting throats.

FelixG
2010-07-18, 06:12 AM
My point isn't that you shouldn't let bad things happen to PCs. That would make for a boring game. I'm saying that you shouldn't kill them because of a small oversight. They should at least get a hint, maybe a wisdom or karma check. If they actively choose not to post a watch then its their own fault.




They said that taking shifts was something that just seemed appropriate out in the wild when you're sleeping in tents by a fire but hotels in rogue infested towns are no less dangerous.

Perhaps you should read what the OP posted a little later, a couple of times.

It wasn't an oversight, it wasn't even a simple mistake of setting watches, they thought they didn't need to after pissing off the local sneaky folk.

He pointed out that they could get checks, but when your asleep you get a HUGE penalty (-10) to listening to things and a 10th level assassin has bare minimum of 13 (assuming hes an idiot with a 10 in dex for some reason) of move silently

Assuming the players have a 13 in listen as well and we assume they both take 10 for simplicities stake 13+10 for the assassin for a 23 total, the players on the other hand have (13+10-10)... a 13 (assuming base 10 again) i would say thats pretty damn sneaky, so sure, they could have had warning but having to roll 10 over the assassin just to make up for the penalties is a bit much.

They got off light with only having one person die to an assassin hired to kill them, im part of the camp that says a couple more coulda died...it was their own arrogance that brought them down in this case.

Ormur
2010-07-18, 06:31 AM
They said that bit about taking shifts in the wild in hindsight.

Bharg
2010-07-18, 06:49 AM
You should also poison their food, sabotage their gear, free their mounts and steal their gold. But mention the gold and gear thing just when they're about to use it.
Kill the next party member when they are visiting a crowded place. (Spot vs. Hide; Fail -> Death Attack, Hide again) You should avoid crowded place if the local guil if your enemy.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-18, 09:05 AM
You should also poison their food, sabotage their gear, free their mounts and steal their gold. But mention the gold and gear thing just when they're about to use it.
Kill the next party member when they are visiting a crowded place. (Spot vs. Hide; Fail -> Death Attack, Hide again) You should avoid crowded place if the local guil if your enemy.

As long as you can avoid going overboard, this could be a good way to treat this. Eventually they'll have to go deal with the Thieves' Guild (or just get really paranoid and hide under a rock). This is assuming, of course, that they do have access to raise dead and the like. If they don't, one character death is probably enough and you should ease up on them.

Kylarra
2010-07-18, 09:21 AM
Frankly, since death is a speedbump in D&D, I would've probably had them take the gear. Sure, losing 5k and having the guy next to you dead sends a a message, but so does not having anything. :smallamused:

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 09:37 AM
Piss off the local theives guild, then don't bother to even set a watch before sleeping?

A single dead party member sounds quite appropriate. Actions have consequences, and if they don't, stupid evil behavior runs rampant.

Aroka
2010-07-18, 09:43 AM
There are few warnings more noticable than dying. And the thieves' guildmight have underestimated them.

So they're capable enough to get in to kill them, but stupid enough to not actually kill them all (and leave them alive and thirsting for vengeance), and foolish enough not to appreciate the adventurers' ability to obtain (or, in fact, cast themselves) resurrection magic, and all this for no profit?

I mean I can understand classical villain idiocy, but come on. Ticking off Fafhrd and Mouser didn't work out too well for the thieves' guild, and they weren't even powerful enough to raise the dead...

NowhereMan583
2010-07-18, 10:08 AM
So they're capable enough to get in to kill them, but stupid enough to not actually kill them all (and leave them alive and thirsting for vengeance), and foolish enough not to appreciate the adventurers' ability to obtain (or, in fact, cast themselves) resurrection magic, and all this for no profit?

I mean I can understand classical villain idiocy, but come on. Ticking off Fafhrd and Mouser didn't work out too well for the thieves' guild, and they weren't even powerful enough to raise the dead...

In a situation where raise dead is available, I would think that killing one member of a group would be taken as an intimidating message rather than an actual attack.

Also, I believe the OP mentioned that the others woke up after the first one died, so the assassin wasn't necessarily too stupid to kill them all, he just decided to quit while he was ahead. His job would have gotten a lot harder after everyone was awake.

Aroka
2010-07-18, 10:17 AM
In a situation where raise dead is available, I would think that killing one member of a group would be taken as an intimidating message rather than an actual attack.

Okay, so they just assumed that because the PCs do have access to resurrection magic, they won't mind being killed enough to want to get vengeance? That'd still be stupid.

Seriously, the only way not to be an idiot about it is to either not kill any of them, or to kill all of them. Those are the two ways to make sure they don't come after you for vengeance. Poking them with a stick and hoping you can run fast enough just doesn't make sense.

NowhereMan583
2010-07-18, 10:38 AM
Okay, so they just assumed that because the PCs do have access to resurrection magic, they won't mind being killed enough to want to get vengeance? That'd still be stupid.

Seriously, the only way not to be an idiot about it is to either not kill any of them, or to kill all of them. Those are the two ways to make sure they don't come after you for vengeance. Poking them with a stick and hoping you can run fast enough just doesn't make sense.

You're assuming that the PCs have more power than the Thieves' Guild. If the Guild thinks that they can take on the PCs if necessary, then they'd probably feel pretty safe about sending this sort of message.

El Dorado
2010-07-18, 10:43 AM
Out of curiosity, what did the PCs do that ticked off the guild?

Curmudgeon
2010-07-18, 11:14 AM
You were way too easy on those PCs. While you as DM may have needed to look up the coup de grace rules at the time, an Assassin character knows very well how these things work and should be expected to repeat the action multiple times unless the PCs get extraordinarily lucky. A simple Silence scroll, with Use Magic Device, should be enough to allow consecutive kills with no annoying wakeups.

What I'm concerned about is how the Assassin got into the room.
You must have line of sight and line of effect to your destination.
An otherwise solid barrier with a hole of at least 1 square foot through it does not block a spell’s line of effect. Such an opening means that the 5-foot length of wall containing the hole is no longer considered a barrier for purposes of a spell’s line of effect. So was this an unglazed window with bars set 1' apart? Seems pretty random to me to make a window covering that wouldn't bar line of effect in a world full of magic. :smallconfused:

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-07-18, 11:44 AM
As a GM: I would have kept killing people till somebody made the listen check to wake up.

as a Player: this is what ALARM is for. . . very simple very cheap spell. . . saves a ton of trouble.

Tengu_temp
2010-07-18, 01:25 PM
There are a few people here saying that killing someone in their sleep is mean and not fun. I don't agree with that. If there's no risk of failure, then your players may as well just declare how they succeed at everything.

This wasn't a risk of failure. This was a certain failure. And by failure, I mean the death of a PC in this case, which in my opinion is rarely a good thing. Believe me, a good DM can make the players feel the sour taste of defeat without killing any of their characters.

I don't play RPGs as a set of challenges - that's what video games are for. I play RPGs to tell an interesting story with my players. Non-dramatically killing one of them just because they forgot to do something, but took other precautions? I fail to see what it brings to the story.


Don't hold back on your players, or they'll believe they're invincible. Half the fun is succeeding despite the risk. That's why Superman isn't as cool as Batman - Batman is tough, but he's vulnerable, and that's way more exciting when he succeeds than an invulnerable super-cake-making (http://superdickery.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=713:why-fight-crime-when-you-can-bake-a-cake&catid=36:stupor-powers-index&Itemid=38) powers boy scout.


Actually, both Superman and Batman are cool in the hands of good writers, and boring and stupid in the hands of bad ones.

Ormur
2010-07-18, 02:23 PM
There seems to be two opposed views, that I shouldn't have killed anyone or that I should have killed them all.

I was perhaps a bit under-prepared for this session and the scroll of silence could certainly have gotten them all killed, but then again I don't want that. I also didn't really consider that there might not be a line of effect. It was a second story window on cheap room I just figured you could jaunt in after climbing up to it.

Their disagreement with the thieves guild (it's not an actual guild but, you know) stems from them taking a job from a powerful member of the mage guild to retrieve an item from the thieves' vault. They basically attacked their headquarters head on with fireballs and fists blazing in broad daylight. I foolishly expected something more discreet although one party member at least had the sense to infiltrate the thieves guild and stir things up beforehand.

They actually managed to take out some of the highest level thieves and leave the rest of them seething with anger but still realizing they were dealing with dangerous foes.

The city is well supervised by a dragon, the mage guild and a city watch of sorcerers. The political situation is complicated and the thieves guild operates with expressed permission from the dragon. Right after the job they had a scheduled meeting with him and were just let of with a stern warning not to screw things up more in return for doing a mission for the dragon. He'll seek restitution for breaking the peace from the wizard that hired them in the first place.

So the dragon makes sure they won't get in trouble with the city watch and they were on mostly friendly terms with it to begin with. That only leaves the thieves. They decided to bring in outside help in the form of an anonymous assassin.

So I'm pretty sure they won't go back to cloudkill the rest of the guild in revenge but there's a shapeshifting assassin that has been tasked with teaching them the consequences of their actions after them and they'll have to deal with him before he kills the rest of them.

Resurrection is actually available to them but the player who's character got killed decided to roll another one instead. Getting killed is however very annoying because it sets you back a whole level and even though a DM shouldn't try to kill PC's for minor oversights it really does teach them to be more careful.

The player who's character died has killed my character in a very similar way as a DM himself (no it wasn't revenge) and I got more careful after that. I targeted his character because he was the least circumspect and easily identifiable one from the assassins viewpoint. Metagamingly I also thought he'd have the best chance of surviving but alas, there really was only a 1 in 20 chance.

Edit: The assassin is still alive and kicking and they have no idea who he is so I still have plenty of opportunity to steal their gear, poison their food (which some of them have actually taken precautions against) and stabbing them in crowded streets.

PapaNachos
2010-07-18, 02:35 PM
There seems to be two opposed views, that I shouldn't have killed anyone or that I should have killed them all.
I suppose the most important question is whether your group plays for the story or the game itself?

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 03:17 PM
No, no, killing one as a warning is quite appropriate and teaches them a valuable lesson about setting a guard. Or not making powerful enemies. Whichever. Both lessons are good.

Ormur
2010-07-18, 03:26 PM
Yeah, I don't think it went too badly. There are no hard feelings and they needed to be reminded that can't be reckless all of the time. If you're reckless while killing thieves guild members you have to at least take care afterwards.

In retrospect there were a lot of precautions that they could have taken quite easily. Alarms, shifts, changing hotels, staying at the mage guild etc. etc.

They've already bought up every hotel room in the city in their name which is pretty hilarious but should be effective if they aren't under constant observation.

PapaNachos
2010-07-18, 03:27 PM
They've already bought up every hotel room in the city in their name which is pretty hilarious but should be effective if they aren't under constant observation.

They resorted to that before just getting a room under another name?

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 03:30 PM
I like it. Kinda ridiculous, but makes for an entertaining situation.

Bharg
2010-07-18, 03:38 PM
They cracked. Nice work, DM. :smallwink:

Are there any safety measures one can't bypass?
An assassin taking on 10th level heros would definitely use the help of a wizard helping him to scry on his targets and bypass magical safety stuff...

Greenish
2010-07-18, 04:09 PM
No, no, killing one as a warning is quite appropriate and teaches them a valuable lesson about setting a guard. Or not making powerful enemies. Whichever. Both lessons are good.Or not leaving powerful enemies alive.

Aroka
2010-07-18, 04:56 PM
They've already bought up every hotel room in the city in their name which is pretty hilarious but should be effective if they aren't under constant observation.

Congratulations, you have achieved the inevitable result of this: your players are now paranoid, and will waste time indulging in pointless paranoia to guard against death, when they can never protect themselves from everything you can throw at them.

The scenario you describe does make lethal retribution the obvious option, but it makes the assassin's performance even more foolish. The PCs have already proven themselves strong enough to take the guild head on, and the guild responds by provoking them further?

PC death is fine, but unavoidable PC death sucks majorly (especially if, as Curmudgeon points out, you may have misapplied the rules; though I'll grant the ins-and-outs of lines of effect are somewhat obscure stuff).

If your players weren't discouraged or annoyed, then everything's fine. You'll just have to deal with the paranoia. Try not to aggravate it further, though - let their precautions actually work. There is no limit to how over-cautious you can make players, and it will slow down the game eventually (and may even cause players to avoid obvious plot hooks).


Or not leaving powerful enemies alive.

That's the lesson I and my players would have come away with. "Should've finished them. It's not too late..."

dps
2010-07-18, 05:02 PM
I don't play RPGs as a set of challenges - that's what video games are for. I play RPGs to tell an interesting story with my players. Non-dramatically killing one of them just because they forgot to do something, but took other precautions? I fail to see what it brings to the story.


I think waking up to find a member of your party with his throat slit makes for a pretty dramatic storyline.

And they DIDN'T "forget" to do something. They made a conscious choice to not set a watch after directly attacking the thieves' guild. Sheesh.

Kaun
2010-07-18, 05:33 PM
This wasn't a risk of failure. This was a certain failure. And by failure, I mean the death of a PC in this case, which in my opinion is rarely a good thing. Believe me, a good DM can make the players feel the sour taste of defeat without killing any of their characters.

I don't play RPGs as a set of challenges - that's what video games are for. I play RPGs to tell an interesting story with my players. Non-dramatically killing one of them just because they forgot to do something, but took other precautions? I fail to see what it brings to the story.


If this story involved the PC's trying to take down a rampaging mob of gelatinous cubes by head butting them to death would your attitude be the same?

They did something equally stupid as the above scenario and got a minor punishment, as a player i would be pissed off if i could be so lax in a game and just get away with it because it would mean that my actions ment basicly nothing.

Ormur
2010-07-18, 05:49 PM
They decided to sleep in the mage guild which is as safe as it can get against outside threats. The assassin won't be getting at them there.

Buying up every hotel room in the city may be a little paranoid but it isn't tedious. It was done equally for the protection and the laughs. It's also funny how little it costs a mid-level characters to actually do.

I didn't deliberately decide on a scenario I knew they couldn't survive. I just decided that an assassin would visit them in the night and figured a party that routinely curb stomps my attempts at equivalent level encounters could handle that.

Tengu_temp
2010-07-18, 07:17 PM
And they DIDN'T "forget" to do something. They made a conscious choice to not set a watch after directly attacking the thieves' guild. Sheesh.

Then I'd let them hear the assassin, and start a tough fight where the odds work against them (no armor, no new spells prepared, et cetera). Do note that my stance on death is very different from typical DND - death is rare, dramatic, and permanent, not an annoying but easily reversable (at least at higher levels) condition.


If this story involved the PC's trying to take down a rampaging mob of gelatinous cubes by head butting them to death would your attitude be the same?


I fail to see how is this supposed to be stupid. It sounds like a perfectly viable, if subpar, tactic of fighting gelatinous cubes, and could be awesome if executed properly.

Aroka
2010-07-18, 07:20 PM
Then I'd let them hear the assassin, and start a tough fight where the odds work against them (no armor, no new spells prepared, et cetera). Do note that my stance on death is very different from typical DND - death is rare, dramatic, and permanent, not an annoying but easily reversable (at least at higher levels) condition.

I completely agree with your thinking on both counts.

There's nothing wrong with unfair, even unwinnable fights - they're not even close to the same as automatic death.

Math_Mage
2010-07-18, 08:18 PM
Then I'd let them hear the assassin, and start a tough fight where the odds work against them (no armor, no new spells prepared, et cetera). Do note that my stance on death is very different from typical DND - death is rare, dramatic, and permanent, not an annoying but easily reversable (at least at higher levels) condition.

If it works in your games, it works in your games. However, Ormur's assassins seem to be operating under the Dragaeran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragaera) paradigm, where the common availability of revivication means that an assassination that leaves the body to be revived is meant to send a message. Is this a problem?


I fail to see how is this supposed to be stupid. It sounds like a perfectly viable, if subpar, tactic of fighting gelatinous cubes, and could be awesome if executed properly.

And what is 'awesome' or 'viable' about sleeping unguarded after ticking off the Thieves' Guild?

Tengu_temp
2010-07-18, 08:24 PM
If it works in your games, it works in your games. However, Ormur's assassins seem to be operating under the Dragaeran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragaera) paradigm, where the common availability of revivication means that an assassination that leaves the body to be revived is meant to send a message. Is this a problem?


I feel that resurrection being commonly available cheapens the impact of death. It's unavoidable in online video games, but I'd rather keep it away from my RPGs. If someone else prefers to do it differently, fine, but this is my chosen playstyle.



And what is 'awesome' or 'viable' about sleeping unguarded after ticking off the Thieves' Guild?

Who called it awesome? It's careless, but not retardedly stupid and annoying - enough to punish the PCs, but not enough to just kill them outright.

Math_Mage
2010-07-18, 08:29 PM
Who called it awesome? It's careless, but not retardedly stupid and annoying - enough to punish the PCs, but not enough to just kill them outright.

Since the character had access to resurrection even if the player chose not to take it, what happened can't be described as 'killing them outright'. That was the point of my analogy to the Vlad Taltos universe. Invading the Thieves' Guild and then not guarding the party's sleep is like headbutting a gelatinous cube, but without the awesomeness or viability.

Tengu_temp
2010-07-18, 08:36 PM
I still think my solution works better. It teaches the PCs the same lesson, but without the frustration of one of them dying without being able to do anything about it.

Otodetu
2010-07-18, 08:38 PM
I would have to say that this all depends on the situation and playstyle of those involved, do some reflection and you will find better answers than you can find here.

Kantolin
2010-07-18, 08:46 PM
Hrm.

My problem isn't whether or not it's realistic or not, though - I dont think anyone who's saying they dislike it is saying that 'assassin gets in and assassinates you' is an unrealistic response.

There are a lot of ways this could've gone with a similar result, in fact. Say one of the thieves guild is a high-enough level spellcaster with a rod of maximize. The group is walking and then blam, you all take enough-damage-to-kill-the-cleric from a maximized fireball.

They could've snuck in with meld with stone or being ethreal or shadowjump or just downright awesome hide checks, silently killed whomever was awake.

Heck, they could've decided the party was an insanely threatening threat and sent their greatest units to solve them, and thus attacked the party with nearly-epic units.

The problem is the result was 'Okay, when you wake up, soandso is dead', in a way that they really couldn't have done a lot to stop.

I mean... you wanted them to keep watch when the only way into the room was through a barred window or a barred door? They were practically sitting in a closed box.

Do they even know what happened? As if that was 'Okay, make listen checks, -10 for being asleep, you wake up and soandso is dead with a note from the thieves guild' (which is definitely a realistic way of handling then), then for all they know someone teleported in invisibly or something. Or, why would keeping watch have helped?

And why would a thieves guild that's this well prepared for people who have locked htemselves in a box use a method of stealthy entry which could be easily thwarted by any old schmo with a positive wisdom modifier?

I mean, if I was a remaining party member, I'm not sure what else I'd do. Had the exact situation happened with the assassin being invisible, they'd be sunk, as a random example, with or without someone keeping watch.

I mean, their joke was about scry and die, but scry and die is a very realistically reasonable tactic with those things avaliable. The reason it's not used in most games (At least, most games I'm used to) is that it's not very fun to have it happen, and rarely fun when it's implemented.

So I dunno. I'm a little surprised the thief even /tried/ the door if he could dash in the window like that. It does sound like the party's being punished for not 'specifically keeping watch', as they seem to have taken other useful precautions (Room with only one reasonable way in unless you can teleport, and they blocked that entrance).

So... I dunno. :P But hey, if they feel like it's their fault for not having the fighter who has two ranks in spot cross-class keep watch, and feel that would've clearly solved their situation, then cool beans.

And more realistically, if they're generally okay with it and are still having fun, then cool. That's the kind of thing I'd roll my eyes with and either ignore or turn the game into 'How many paranoid ways can we make sure this doesn't happen again', and spend a good long time sitting around. Like the DM who insists the rogue has to explicitly say 'I'm looking for traps', then is annoyed when repeatedly through his description of the area that the rogue continues his mantra, 'Oh, I'm expressly looking for traps now. Are there any traps now? Does my character see any traps here?'

comicshorse
2010-07-18, 08:48 PM
Posted by Ormur

There seems to be two opposed views, that I shouldn't have killed anyone or that I should have killed them all.


No I think you got it right as you did.
You showed there were consequences to messing with dangerous people and not taking precautions but didn't destroy the whole party and ruin the game

Kaun
2010-07-18, 09:09 PM
When it comes down too it, you could have writen up a 10th level assassin with minimal gear and 1k worth of scrolls in his kit and walked them through what happened, letting them watch as you rolled every dice and took out the entire party with out breaking a sweat.

They picked a fight with a group of people who go out of there way to avoid direct confrontation, all it would have taken is an alarm spell and a posted watch and it would have made things much harder for their assassin.

Hell from the description on the room in the inn if the DM wanted to be rough and the guild really wanted to send a msg they could have pegged the door from the hallway outside the room and thrown oil and fire in through the window then shot xbows at anybody who managed to get out.

they got of lightly in my mind and no doubt are wiser players now for it.

Tyndmyr
2010-07-18, 09:16 PM
I feel that resurrection being commonly available cheapens the impact of death. It's unavoidable in online video games, but I'd rather keep it away from my RPGs. If someone else prefers to do it differently, fine, but this is my chosen playstyle.

This attitude seems so common that it appears even the real life invention of immortality would be met with complaints on dramatic grounds.

Ernir
2010-07-18, 09:26 PM
Hi, former level 10 Swordsage speaking here.

It should be known that there are no hard feelings, no "OMG YUR A KILLER DM" accusations, only "damn, this was a terrible time to not set watch, wasn't it, guys?" and sheepish looks between the players.


On the "he should have killed everyone" crowd: My corpse made a noise when it hit the ground, it woke up the rest. And if this assassin is smart enough to know that he can kill us in our sleep, he is probably also smart enough to know that even missing my Swordsage, the rest of the party can most likely splatter him in a single round. Leaving after killing the first was the very smartest thing he could do, given the circumstances, I'd say.

On player death relevance - I could have come back as my (favourite for all time) Swordsage, but, I didn't. We decided that we could bring out the greatest amount of awesome from this by making the Cohort of the Swordsage take up the fallen Swordsage's bandana, and continues the quests on as a real PC, now with two more levels in badass.
Resurrection was an option, but the Swordsage, being of the VoP sort, wasn't sure he would even want to be raised, shuddering at the amount of diamonds that would need to be mined just to bring HIM back. Resurrection might have been practical (we are on a quest), but it's almost definitely not what my character would have wanted.

So. Our adventure goes on, only we are missing the Bull-in-a-chinashop that was my Swordsage, and are up one Healer-gone-real-PC-Class-now with vengeance on her mind.[/I]

Kaun
2010-07-18, 09:30 PM
On the "he should have killed everyone" crowd: My corpse made a noise when it hit the ground, it woke up the rest.

You sleep standing up?

Aroka
2010-07-18, 09:33 PM
Hell from the description on the room in the inn if the DM wanted to be rough and the guild really wanted to send a msg they could have pegged the door from the hallway outside the room and thrown oil and fire in through the window then shot xbows at anybody who managed to get out.

That would have been a far, far better option. The point I and (I think) Tengu_temp are trying to make is agency. "You wake up, X is dead" is a sucky thing. "You wake up to the room being on fire" is exciting. Letting the PCs do something about it is the point.

Ernir: It would have been trivial for the assassin to make sure there was no noise. Silence is a cheap spell. And trying the door to begin with was silly. The assassin was a weird mix of incompetence and competence. Basically, the party lives because of DM whim, not any kind of in-game logic.

Greenish
2010-07-18, 11:14 PM
You sleep standing up?You don't?

Another_Poet
2010-07-18, 11:24 PM
Lose your character without being able to do anything about it, because you took several precautions in your sleep but forgot about a single, particular one. FUN!

I'd ask my players "are you sure you're not forgetting something?" or hint that they should take shifts in another way.

Normally I would agree but the OP did everything right. The assassin was level appropriate (it sounds like) and had to make all its checks, the PCs all got their checks with the by-the-book penalty for sleeping, CdG was used correctly.

I agree with the first reply: well done. Many GMs would chicken out as per Tengu's suggestion. But honestly if you have to drop hints to get your PCs to take guard shifts while resting - when they know a bunch of sneaky people are out to kill them - you are just going way too easy. OP handled it well, I wouldn't feel cheated at all as a PC in this situation.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-19, 12:27 AM
You didn't need to kill one to give the importance of taking shifts, simply having ones purse stolen would have accomplished that. Killing a character in his sleep like you described doesn't sound like it adds to the experience just pisses people off.

The best thing you could have done was have one of them knocked out with a subduing coup-de-grace then captured. This can make for an interesting adventure as the party gives chase with little time to don most of their equipment.


Oh Rope Trick, where art thou?

Given the nature of ropetrick would you really sleep in one every single night? Doesn't that sound really uncomfortable? In a dungeon it makes sense[but it can backfire] but in town I think it should be expected the party stays at an Inn.


I feel that resurrection being commonly available cheapens the impact of death. It's unavoidable in online video games, but I'd rather keep it away from my RPGs. If someone else prefers to do it differently, fine, but this is my chosen playstyle.


Ending a campaign with an entirely different cast of characters then you began because they couldn't raise each other cheapens the story. In D&D death comes swiftly and easily.
Complete Divine offers a nice little bit about most people don't wish to be brought back and only those with the strongest desires and unfinished business wish to come back to life. If 95% of the people who die, lack the will, the desire or the force of personality to come back to life. You can keep the impact of death.
Losing a level is enough of an impact for most PC's.

Tengu_temp
2010-07-19, 12:56 AM
Ending a campaign with an entirely different cast of characters then you began because they couldn't raise each other cheapens the story. In D&D death comes swiftly and easily.

If I ever played DND 3.x, I'd modify it to suit my playstyle - no instant death spells, your number of negative hit points scales with constitution and/or level, and other modifications that make sure a PC who gets reduced to negatives in a random battle will most likely just be knocked out (like in 4e). "Oops, your old character is dead, roll a new one" is not a part of my chosen playstyle just like cheap resurrection isn't.

PapaNachos
2010-07-19, 01:22 AM
If I ever played DND 3.x, I'd modify it to suit my playstyle - no instant death spells, your number of negative hit points scales with constitution and/or level, and other modifications that make sure a PC who gets reduced to negatives in a random battle will most likely just be knocked out (like in 4e). "Oops, your old character is dead, roll a new one" is not a part of my chosen playstyle just like cheap resurrection isn't.

I'm my campaigns I don't use save-or-die spells. As a rule I've decided that a players death should never come down to a roll of the die. Of course sometimes really unlucky rolls happen, like the boss criting and then rolling max damage, but I see a huge difference between that and forcing your player to make a DCwhatever save or die.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-19, 05:17 AM
I'm my campaigns I don't use save-or-die spells. As a rule I've decided that a players death should never come down to a roll of the die. Of course sometimes really unlucky rolls happen, like the boss criting and then rolling max damage, but I see a huge difference between that and forcing your player to make a DCwhatever save or die.

When about when the shoes on the other foot. As a player I've had save or die effects on NPC's save the party. Just last week we got ambushed an dragon, fairly well injured by its opening breath weapon and still recovering from a previous encounter, [the vigor wand still had some work to do] Couldn't even run as the only exist was a long hallway.

My turn rolled around and I thought should I cast resist energy acid to save myself from its next breathe weapon? or try attempt a phantasmal killer to remove the young adult before it kills one of us. I went for Phantasmal killer and was successful in saving the party.

FelixG
2010-07-19, 05:36 AM
Hmmm after hearing more i think the GM did a really good job, a good warning (at 10th level even if rez spells arnt very common they are affordable, PCs have what 60k gp by then or so?) One kill is a good "we can kill you any time we want, shape up or die" warning and gives the players a reason to go directly after em or avoid them like the plague.

Im glad the GM didnt whimp out, i dislike GMs who never take off the kid gloves (like Tengus games seem to suggest) if i do something stupid or piss off the wrong people i love to have to deal with the repercussions, a thinking game is more fun than not.

Drascin
2010-07-19, 07:40 AM
Ending a campaign with an entirely different cast of characters then you began because they couldn't raise each other cheapens the story. In D&D death comes swiftly and easily.
Complete Divine offers a nice little bit about most people don't wish to be brought back and only those with the strongest desires and unfinished business wish to come back to life. If 95% of the people who die, lack the will, the desire or the force of personality to come back to life. You can keep the impact of death.
Losing a level is enough of an impact for most PC's.

That thing you said, with none of the characters being the ones that started, happened to me, about eight months after I started DMing. It was what taught me to rein the challenges back a bit, because the plot just died in the way, since none of the characters had actually seen the events that sparked the plot, and were only working out of inertia and believing the previous characters...

That did also have something to do with the players, though - it would be useful if any player I've had in the history of ever actually ever resurrected their characters instead of making a new one and having me deal with managing to get him into the party in a noncontrived way. I think the only way to make them willing to resurrect would be to give them resurrection scrolls so that they don't have to even take a detour - most of my players aren't actually willing to stomach a level loss, a money cost, and a detour for a resurrection, even if it's just heading to the next city for their high-level cleric, surprising as it sounds.

hewhosaysfish
2010-07-19, 08:45 AM
Given the nature of ropetrick would you really sleep in one every single night?
Not every single night, only on the nights when I was concerned about being murdered in my bed by mafia hit-men.


Doesn't that sound really uncomfortable?
To me, yes, but to the Swordsage with a knife stuck in his face I'm guessing it sounds quite cozy right about now.


In a dungeon it makes sense[but it can backfire] but in town I think it should be expected the party stays at an Inn.

Quick question: Was Moria (of Tolkien's Middle-Earth) a city or a dungeon? Should a visiting party sleep in the local inn or in their secure pocket-dimension?

Answer:

It's a trick question!
When Moria was in it's heyday, bustling with dwarves, it was a city and visitors should avail themselves of the softest dwarven beds they can afford.

When the Fellowship of the Ring visited Moria, bustiling with goblins, it should be considered a dungeon and if Rope Trick had been available to Gandalf then I'm sure he would have been grateful for it.

And the moral of the story is: "Dungeon" is a matter of inhabitants, not geography. Anywhere can feel like a dungeon when a great hairy thing with teeth is chewing on your a***.

Greenish
2010-07-19, 09:22 AM
Given the nature of ropetrick would you really sleep in one every single night?A perfectly safe extradimensional hideout for free, or paying to sleep in a (literally) lousy inn?

Oh wait, the consensus of this thread was that you shouldn't even sleep while in the inn!


…Yeah, I think I stick with the trick.

valadil
2010-07-19, 09:55 AM
When I first read the title of this thread I missed the F in the last word and assumed you must have been playing Fatal.

Ormur
2010-07-19, 09:58 AM
Ernir: It would have been trivial for the assassin to make sure there was no noise. Silence is a cheap spell. And trying the door to begin with was silly. The assassin was a weird mix of incompetence and competence. Basically, the party lives because of DM whim, not any kind of in-game logic.

After reading this thread I've seen that had I prepared better realistically the failures of the PCs to take precautions would have been the death of them even considering a level appropriate threat. A scroll of silence, beginning with the PCs that slept horizontally etc.

But that wouldn't be any fun so the DM is ideally supposed to let the NPCs misinterpret events or otherwise screw up things up in ways that make it fun. Had I prepared better I also might have found a reasonable reason for the assassin not making a coup de grace, holding back for some reason.

The silly actions of the assassin can be explained by the DM usually having less of an investment in his NPCs than players in their PCs and usually less of chance at consulting others about the wises choices of action. His omniscience and omnipotence of the plot compensate but when you're not very experienced it usually results in NPCs taking actions that they never should have taken. A professional assassin has a lot more time to think about the wisest course of action than I have. Still, he's alive unlike the PC which from the NPC's perspective is a success relative to most of the NPCs I've created.

OzymandiasVolt
2010-07-19, 10:09 AM
It's alarming how many people don't think players should face consequences for doing stupid things, like pissing off the thieves' guild and then not posting sentries (or any of the other defense methods available, which they ALSO didn't do) while you sleep in the same town.

If there's no threat of negative consequence from your actions, then most of the challenge is gone, and along with it a healthy chunk of fun. Dying is something that happens sometimes. Deal with it.

Choco
2010-07-19, 10:24 AM
It's alarming how many people don't think players should face consequences for doing stupid things, like pissing off the thieves' guild and then not posting sentries (or any of the other defense methods available, which they ALSO didn't do) while you sleep in the same town.

If there's no threat of negative consequence from your actions, then most of the challenge is gone, and along with it a healthy chunk of fun. Dying is something that happens sometimes. Deal with it.

+1

They are lucky the assassin didn't kill the whole party, or rather that only ONE was sent. Seriously, the only "precaution" they, as a 10th level party that likely has many powerful enemies, took was having the tank sleep in a position that blocked the door? Yeah, they had it coming.

Ernir
2010-07-19, 11:58 AM
You sleep standing up?

I actually tried. I failed the balance check. :smallfrown:

(I slept leaning against the door instead.)

Normally I would agree but the OP did everything right. The assassin was level appropriate (it sounds like) and had to make all its checks, the PCs all got their checks with the by-the-book penalty for sleeping, CdG was used correctly.
Yup.

I was actually the one who pointed out that Listen checks taken while asleep carry a penalty, and that one doesn't need an attack roll to hit with a CdG. One of the other players was furious, saying I was trying to get us all killed. :smallbiggrin:

I wouldn't feel cheated at all as a PC in this situation.Indeed I don't. We ****ed up, a character died. Simple.

You didn't need to kill one to give the importance of taking shifts, simply having ones purse stolen would have accomplished that. Killing a character in his sleep like you described doesn't sound like it adds to the experience just pisses people off.
Well, I'm still laughing about it, even if the characters aren't. No one is pissed.

Ending a campaign with an entirely different cast of characters then you began because they couldn't raise each other cheapens the story. In D&D death comes swiftly and easily.
Luckily, this one doesn't really apply here. The replacement character is my previous character's cohort. From the IC perspective, what happens is that my original character dies an awful death, and his student needs to step into the spotlight. Doesn't sound cheap to me.

Cybren
2010-07-19, 01:09 PM
If you're gonna play it that way you should have killed them all.


Why would they leave survivors

Snake-Aes
2010-07-19, 01:26 PM
If you're gonna play it that way you should have killed them all.


Why would they leave survivors

That was already explained. They woke up with the CdG's commotion.
Really, characters die. If their death wasn't meant to be part of the game, there wouldn't be hit points in the character sheets.

Beating challenges where you are at risk is much more pleasing if you actually are at risk.

Aroka
2010-07-19, 01:59 PM
It's alarming how many people don't think players should face consequences for doing stupid things, like pissing off the thieves' guild and then not posting sentries (or any of the other defense methods available, which they ALSO didn't do) while you sleep in the same town.

Who thinks that? Some strawman?

Again: the key is agency. Setting the PCs' inn on fire would have been a much better option. A hundred deadly thugs kicking the door in would have been a better option. And so on.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-19, 02:24 PM
Who thinks that? Some strawman?

Again: the key is agency. Setting the PCs' inn on fire would have been a much better option. A hundred deadly thugs kicking the door in would have been a better option. And so on.

Why not all of the above? If the guild was ticked off, it would be likely a good idea to slit one's throat as warning #1, burn their houses as warning #2 and blaming them for it as warning #3. That is, assuming the players also committed the mistake of making their own properties known, but by then you're already reaching Black Lagoon levels of retribution. One person died. They lucked enough to foil the assassin's attempt to kill all of them. It's a good start if the big guys didn't make it personal.

taltamir
2010-07-19, 02:46 PM
Why not all of the above? If the guild was ticked off, it would be likely a good idea to slit one's throat as warning #1, burn their houses as warning #2 and blaming them for it as warning #3. That is, assuming the players also committed the mistake of making their own properties known, but by then you're already reaching Black Lagoon levels of retribution. One person died. They lucked enough to foil the assassin's attempt to kill all of them. It's a good start if the big guys didn't make it personal.

players don't have houses or other such property... players are very well armed and dangerous murderous hobos. :)

Snake-Aes
2010-07-19, 02:48 PM
players don't have houses or other such property... players are very well armed and dangerous murderous hobos. :)

:p your players might be missing on some fun. Headquarters, minions(hey, leadership! Wait, your actions caused disproportionate revenge that ended in the death of all your followers? Damn, there goes a -10 to leadership score), family, plus whatever they carry.

Choco
2010-07-19, 02:51 PM
players don't have houses or other such property... players are very well armed and dangerous murderous hobos. :)

They do occasionally have bases of operation though. I think burning down their keep/castle would get the point across.

Or even better, the enemy is a thieves guild, so maybe they can just insert their spies among the ranks of the PC's minions and start a mutiny somewhere down the road (even a year of RL time) when it would be least convenient.

NOTHING beats your past transgressions coming back to bite you in the ass when you least expect it, long after you have already forgotten :smalltongue:

Rasman
2010-07-19, 03:35 PM
Sleep = Free XP, my group is running though an old module that's full of Giants, we entered their hovel at night and with the use of a "Silence" spell, as a half-dragon monk I walked around dishing out DC 42 Fort Save or dies all night. Must have killed 20 Giants like this, would have killed everyone if there hadn't been people in the kitchen and the necromancer hadn't been bored...

Alarm is your best friend with stuff like this, but Silence will screw you...never going anywhere without a wand of Silence ever again...

Bharg
2010-07-19, 03:49 PM
Don't you think Silence will wake people up?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-19, 04:08 PM
Don't you Silence will wake people up?

What is the dc to hear silence? :p

Bharg
2010-07-19, 04:27 PM
What is the dc to hear silence? :p

How hard is it to notice that you are deaf and does it create enough discomfort to wake you?

Snake-Aes
2010-07-19, 05:12 PM
How hard is it to notice that you are deaf and does it create enough discomfort to wake you?

hardly. People don't usually wake up due to too much silence.

Drascin
2010-07-19, 06:18 PM
hardly. People don't usually wake up due to too much silence.

You know some pretty hard sleepers, then. I can assure you a sudden change in the ambient amount of sound (if it goes from noisy to silent suddenly) is enough to at least make me grumble and open my eyes a bit, ruining my sleep for that night. I'm obviously not the only one, either, given my uncle is known for waking up startled whenever someone turns his TV off if he's fallen asleep with it on.

Really, have to say, didn't think of it, but a perception check to let the players get startled seems fair in case of bubble of Silence.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-19, 07:35 PM
A perfectly safe extradimensional hideout for free, or paying to sleep in a (literally) lousy inn?

Oh wait, the consensus of this thread was that you shouldn't even sleep while in the inn!


…Yeah, I think I stick with the trick.

That just isn't believable roleplaying, lets look at it another way. A comfortable warm bed. Or a crowded tiny closet with little to no room. I don't imagine the space in rope trick as very comfortable, especially for a group of adventures who stink from days on the road.

Not to mention you have to stash all your bags of holding and other bits of equipment outside the rope trick. Which means hiding it somewhere outside
the rope trick which carries its own risk.

Not to mention enemies can be smart enough to search for a rope trick, the entrance is only invisible so its possible to find especially by the BBEG wizard whose dungeon your hiding in.

Scrying could locate the party in the rope trick just as easily as an Inn, letting the enemy toss in a haversack sending the whole party to another plane. If they don't have the proper focus for the material plane. They won't be coming back to easily.

Alarm would have worked better.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-07-19, 07:35 PM
Luckily, this one doesn't really apply here. The replacement character is my previous character's cohort. From the IC perspective, what happens is that my original character dies an awful death, and his student needs to step into the spotlight. Doesn't sound cheap to me.
Well, it works out well in this case, since the swordsage already had a cohort that was known. It’s not some replacement character coming out of absolutely nowhere. Furthermore, it’s not a complete switch-up. It’s really the same cast of characters, just reduced by one.


Again: the key is agency. Setting the PCs' inn on fire would have been a much better option. A hundred deadly thugs kicking the door in would have been a better option. And so on.
Just because the last few rolls a character makes were passive checks doesn’t mean that character was denied agency. The party made a deliberate decision to not set watch. That was their chance for agency, and they chose not to take it.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-19, 07:44 PM
You know some pretty hard sleepers, then. I can assure you a sudden change in the ambient amount of sound (if it goes from noisy to silent suddenly) is enough to at least make me grumble and open my eyes a bit, ruining my sleep for that night. I'm obviously not the only one, either, given my uncle is known for waking up startled whenever someone turns his TV off if he's fallen asleep with it on.

Really, have to say, didn't think of it, but a perception check to let the players get startled seems fair in case of bubble of Silence.

Is that what the rules support, though? The dc is to wake up from hearing something, not not hearing something.

Greenish
2010-07-19, 07:51 PM
That just isn't believable roleplaying,Each for their own. You don't become a successful adventurer without a healthy dose of paranoia, and you have no grounds go calling playstyles that differ from your own as poor roleplaying.
lets look at it another way. A comfortable warm bed. Or a crowded tiny closet with little to no room.Room enough for 8 medium creatures. Nothing says it can't be spacious, especially since most groups are smaller than 8 people. Nothing even says it can't have a comfortable, warm bed.

It's also nearly impenetrable, which is handy when you have powerful enemies after you (like PCs are wont to have).

I don't imagine the space in rope trick as very comfortable, especially for a group of adventures who stink from days on the road.I don't imagine a small room in some flea-infected old barn being very comfortable, especially for a group of adventures who stink from days on the road.

See, I can make up stuff based on nothing, too?

Not to mention you have to stash all your bags of holding and other bits of equipment outside the rope trick. Which means hiding it somewhere outside
the rope trick which carries its own risk.No such thing. The vaguely ominous copy/pasta error in the description is tailor-made for being ignored (it's even the official stance, for what good that does to anyone).

Not to mention enemies can be smart enough to search for a rope trick, the entrance is only invisible so its possible to find especially by the BBEG wizard whose dungeon your hiding in.Wait, why are we hiding in a dungeon? You can set up the Rope Trick on the town square, in front of the bakery so you can enjoy fresh-baked bread for breakfast. If the BBEG wizard is looking for me, I'd much rather sleep in Rope Trick where I won't be killed in my sleep than in a room in a common inn.

Scrying could locate the party in the rope trick just as easily as an Inn, letting the enemy toss in a haversack sending the whole party to another plane.Cower the window if you're so afraid about something that's utter balderdash. A rope trick is not a portable hole ('tis a rope trick, see?).

Alarm would have worked better.Hey, you can do that, too. Set the alarm just outside the window!

Math_Mage
2010-07-19, 08:49 PM
Hey, you can do that, too. Set the alarm just outside the window!

Nitpick: if you do this, your adventurers will have a sleepless night in the town square. :smalltongue: Not to argue your overall point, of course.

Rasman
2010-07-19, 09:31 PM
Don't you think Silence will wake people up?


Is that what the rules support, though? The dc is to wake up from hearing something, not not hearing something.

exactly, and you would have to be a PRETTY light sleeper to have a sudden amount of silence wake you up, granted...I would probably miss my snoring, but that means that that wouldn't wake me up, so, I'm golden...or dead rather...

although I did have to make stealth checks to move from bed to bed to kill each one, but the DC was CRAZY easy for me since I stacked Stealth like a mofo...most quiet half dragon ever...

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-20, 03:24 PM
No such thing. The vaguely ominous copy/pasta error in the description is tailor-made for being ignored (it's even the official stance, for what good that does to anyone).

Says you, its a very common, VERY OLD, D&D standard that you don't put an extra dimensional space inside another extra dimensional space. Its not just bag of holding and portable hole. Its long standing tradition.

Sounds more like the guy who wrote that FAQ entry forgot to read spell descriptions.

The space within a rope trick appears to be set by the size of the creatures. So it sounds like its kind of room that changes to meet the minimum requirement.

And if your outside you at least have airflow beyond one tiny window. And if you want a warm bed inside your rope trick you have to carry it up through the opening as its empty space up there.

The entrance does not seal even if you pull up the rope, so it remains open. An assassin could climb a ladder enter your rope trick and kill you in your sleep just like at the Inn. You only make it slightly more difficult for them to find you.

I do have grounds to call it not believable roleplaying based on simple human nature. If your in town and there's a nice Inn[which do exist] and you happen to be very wealthy[being an adventurer]. Are you going to camp out everyday your in such a town or get a nice comfortable room.

Its believable to do once in a while and when out on the road, but I don't buy an entire group of people always being willing to give up sleeping in a nice Inn.

Boci
2010-07-20, 03:40 PM
Says you, its a very common, VERY OLD, D&D standard that you don't put an extra dimensional space inside another extra dimensional space. Its not just bag of holding and portable hole. Its long standing tradition.

Which requires the interpretation that extra and non are the same.


The entrance does not seal even if you pull up the rope, so it remains open. An assassin could climb a ladder enter your rope trick and kill you in your sleep just like at the Inn. You only make it slightly more difficult for them to find you.

I'm pretty sure they cannot enter.


I do have grounds to call it not believable roleplaying based on simple human nature. If your in town and there's a nice Inn[which do exist] and you happen to be very wealthy[being an adventurer]. Are you going to camp out everyday your in such a town or get a nice comfortable room.

Slight discomfort, versus greater chance to survive. Is it also not believable role playing to never light a fire at night? (Something my character usually advocates.)

Math_Mage
2010-07-20, 03:44 PM
Its believable to do once in a while and when out on the road, but I don't buy an entire group of people always being willing to give up sleeping in a nice Inn.

If I'd just made powerful enemies in the town, I'd sure be sleeping in a Rope Trick. Wait, no, I'd get the **** out of Dodge and then sleep in a Rope Trick.

EDIT: If you pull the rope in after you, the assassin can't get in. Not to mention, it's an invisible window.

Draz74
2010-07-20, 04:11 PM
As a side note to this whole thread, I'd like to point out that every character who wears medium/heavy armor OR has a good Listen check should, by Level 10, have Restful armor (Dungeonscape). Only a 500-gp enhancement, and it gives a +5 to Listen checks while sleeping and enables you to sleep in your armor.

FelixG
2010-07-20, 04:25 PM
Well, to hear absolute silence, and notice it, i would say the DC for hearing the silence is a 40 check, based on the table given on the SRD:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/listen.htm

They list one of the most quiet things in nature as being a 30, so absolute silence (or atleast trying to notice it) should be at least a few DCs higher! :D

But yes, after knowingly pissing off the sneaky folk in town they should have retreated to the wilderness and used something like rope trick or secure lodge and sleep in shifts, or even sleep in the Inn with shifts, just silly not to be prepared.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-20, 04:27 PM
Well, to hear absolute silence, and notice it, i would say the DC for hearing the silence is a 40 check, based on the table given on the SRD:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/listen.htm

They list one of the most quiet things in nature as being a 30, so absolute silence (or atleast trying to notice it) should be at least a few DCs higher! :D

But yes, after knowingly pissing off the sneaky folk in town they should have retreated to the wilderness and used something like rope trick or secure lodge and sleep in shifts, or even sleep in the Inn with shifts, just silly not to be prepared.

I am curious because "Hearing Silence" while conscious is kinda easy if you are paying attention to what you hear at all. Not hearing even your own breathing and heartbeat is very unsettling. Ever had a noisy fan turn off after a while? It's pretty noticeable.

But while sleeping? don't think it's that easy.

FelixG
2010-07-20, 04:30 PM
I am curious because "Hearing Silence" while conscious is kinda easy if you are paying attention to what you hear at all. Not hearing even your own breathing and heartbeat is very unsettling. Ever had a noisy fan turn off after a while? It's pretty noticeable.

But while sleeping? don't think it's that easy.

I normally dont hear my own heartbeat 0.o -checks his pulse then curses-

But really, i meant while sleeping the DC for noticing absolute silence would probably be around a 40 for the reason i listed, though in all honesty the system is set up to detect sounds, not the lack there of.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-07-20, 04:47 PM
Which requires the interpretation that extra and non are the same.

How so?, rope trick creates an extra dimensional space, a bag of holding is an extra dimensional space. Rope trick says bringing a extra dimensional space inside another one is hazardous.



I'm pretty sure they cannot enter.

Well then you'd be wrong, no where is it stated in the spell description that the window closes. Which means it remains open. Invisible windows can be found either by see invisibility or even a simple detect magic could let you guess its a rope trick entrance.

The entrance may be invisible but that won't stop a clever man, see invisibility could let them see it. Detect magic could spot the transmutation aura hanging in the air and let you guess at a rope trick use.

FelixG
2010-07-20, 04:51 PM
How so?, rope trick creates an extra dimensional space, a bag of holding is an extra dimensional space. Rope trick says bringing a extra dimensional space inside another one is hazardous.


Well then you'd be wrong, no where is it stated in the spell description that the window closes. Which means it remains open. Invisible windows can be found either by see invisibility or even a simple detect magic could let you guess its a rope trick entrance.

The entrance may be invisible but that won't stop a clever man, see invisibility could let them see it. Detect magic could spot the transmutation aura hanging in the air and let you guess at a rope trick use.

He may be thinking of Mages Magnificent Mansion, where only creatures designated by the caster are allowed to enter, and it is pretty much the ritzy version of a rope trick :D

Snake-Aes
2010-07-20, 04:59 PM
I normally dont hear my own heartbeat 0.o -checks his pulse then curses-

But really, i meant while sleeping the DC for noticing absolute silence would probably be around a 40 for the reason i listed, though in all honesty the system is set up to detect sounds, not the lack there of.

When you are tense and make a movement with a joint that was still for a minute, the creaks are quite audible if the environment is silent.

Boci
2010-07-20, 05:18 PM
How so?, rope trick creates an extra dimensional space, a bag of holding is an extra dimensional space. Rope trick says bringing a extra dimensional space inside another one is hazardous.


This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size. The bag of holding opens into a nondimensional space


The upper end is, in fact, fastened to an extradimensional space

A lot of people do not notice the difference. Took me a while. You're thinking of Portable Hole, which most adventurers can do without.


Well then you'd be wrong, no where is it stated in the spell description that the window closes. Which means it remains open. Invisible windows can be found either by see invisibility or even a simple detect magic could let you guess its a rope trick entrance.

The entrance may be invisible but that won't stop a clever man, see invisibility could let them see it. Detect magic could spot the transmutation aura hanging in the air and let you guess at a rope trick use.

Okay, my mistake. I heard about a monster (astral juggernaught I think) that could enter a rope trick and I assumed it was a special ability of that monster. Still, you could always cast alarm.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-07-20, 08:04 PM
A lot of people do not notice the difference. Took me a while. You're thinking of Portable Hole, which most adventurers can do without.
Portable hole is described both as nondimensional and extradimensional.


Portable Hole

A portable hole is a circle of cloth spun from the webs of a phase spider interwoven with strands of ether and beams of starlight. When opened fully, a portable hole is 6 feet in diameter, but it can be folded up to be as small as a pocket handkerchief. When spread upon any surface, it causes an extradimensional space 10 feet deep to come into being. This hole can be picked up from inside or out by simply taking hold of the edges of the cloth and folding it up. Either way, the entrance disappears, but anything inside the hole remains.

The only air in the hole is that which enters when the hole is opened. It contains enough air to supply one Medium creature or two Small creatures for 10 minutes. The cloth does not accumulate weight even if its hole is filled. Each portable hole opens on its own particular nondimensional space. If a bag of holding is placed within a portable hole, a rift to the Astral Plane is torn in that place. Both the bag and the cloth are sucked into the void and forever lost. If a portable hole is placed within a bag of holding, it opens a gate to the Astral Plane. The hole, the bag, and any creatures within a 10-foot radius are drawn there, the portable hole and bag of holding being destroyed in the process.

Make of that what you will.

Boci
2010-07-20, 08:13 PM
Strange. Well spoted Windrider.

Viskocity
2010-07-21, 02:09 AM
It seems that people are assuming that death has to be the end of the campaign. As far as I can tell, this is a fallacy. Ok, the PCs are dead, now what?

What if, say, a cleric aligned with the thieve's guild raises the PCs, but puts a geas on them to enact some sort of vengeance against the wizard who hired them? This seems like a more effective message because, as far as I can tell, the party is just hired muscle for the real enemies of the thieve's guild. This way their message gets heard by somebody who can actually stop murderous thugs from randomly destroying their headquarters.

Obviously this would not work in a campaign with a strong driving plot, but from your description it seems like it is pretty much a sandbox. If the players are ok with a sudden shift in the direction of the campaign, then this seems like it would be an interesting way to throw a twist on it. If things go sour, you could always say "just kidding...want to try that again?"

Aroka
2010-07-21, 02:12 AM
It seems that people are assuming that death has to be the end of the campaign. As far as I can tell, this is a fallacy. Ok, the PCs are dead, now what?

Nope, had nothing to do with my stance. All about player agency. That said, yeah, I don't like games with resurrection, because it pretty much removes one of the best and most standard dramatic devices.

taltamir
2010-07-21, 02:12 AM
It seems that people are assuming that death has to be the end of the campaign. As far as I can tell, this is a fallacy. Ok, the PCs are dead, now what?

some of the best campaigns I played were in the afterlife... of course, that assumes you can keep your "form" in the afterlife, perform magic, fight with a blade, and basically act just like a living character... only in the afterlife.
And for some reason they were always CRPGs... i don't recall any PNP game where we played in the afterlife... dead was game over in those.

Drascin
2010-07-21, 09:36 AM
It seems that people are assuming that death has to be the end of the campaign. As far as I can tell, this is a fallacy. Ok, the PCs are dead, now what?

What if, say, a cleric aligned with the thieve's guild raises the PCs, but puts a geas on them to enact some sort of vengeance against the wizard who hired them? This seems like a more effective message because, as far as I can tell, the party is just hired muscle for the real enemies of the thieve's guild. This way their message gets heard by somebody who can actually stop murderous thugs from randomly destroying their headquarters

This has the problem of assuming the players would accept a proposal of resurrection by the same guys who just killed them. Personally, I'd figure they want me back to torture me further and re-kill me, so accepting seems a bit... well, a lot dumber and fate-tempting than forgetting to set guard, really.

Bharg
2010-07-21, 09:43 AM
There are probably spells to force someone to be resurrected.

Agrippa
2010-07-21, 07:27 PM
Then I'd let them hear the assassin, and start a tough fight where the odds work against them (no armor, no new spells prepared, et cetera). Do note that my stance on death is very different from typical DND - death is rare, dramatic, and permanent, not an annoying but easily reversable (at least at higher levels) condition.

Well in my opinion having death take place only at "dramatic moments" and to further the plot cheapings death even more than resurrection. Death should be abrupt and rarely expected or directly forseeable. It would make sense that death was a forseeable consequence of certain actions or lack thereof, but it shouldn't happen in a table top game simply for the sake of plot. If a party of PCs is stupid enough to tick off a powerful thieves guild without taking all necessary anti-assassintion precautions then it's not the DMs fault for killing one of the party members, as long as it's in character for the thieves guild. Besides, what would be more dramatic then the rest of the party waking up and seeing one of their members' throat slit with a cheerful little picture painted on the wall with his or her blood?