Am I being too Unfair? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

AlanBruce

2012-12-09, 05:51 AM

Greetings! I'm running a campaign where the PCs are facing an army of skeletons 50ft away from the town they're defending. The Pcs are 12th level, albeit low on Con and Str, due to in-campaign reasons with a few 4th level NPCs and a two 6th level NPCs for good measure. Now, the party composition is as follows:

12th level Spellthief (he dual wields daggers with gravestrike attached to the wand chambers + ring of blinking)

12th level cleric ( a bunch of Prc added on), but a turning machine nonethless

12th level Ultimate Magus

The party and 9 lower level npcs (levels 4-6 and mainly melee, except for a cleric), face 5 groups of 50 skeleton archers each with 3 "skeleton captains" in the rear (these captains are ettins, trolls, and owlbear skeletons). I described that, 200 feet away, two generals were flying and silently watching the battle unfold. Later application of true seeing and relevant checks by the magus would reveal the generals were vampires- warrior and caster. These were protected by 4 greater wraiths- it was a clear message that the battle was to be had in town, not against the generals, although this last part was left open for player/PC interpretation (although the magus relayed telepathic info that those two were "too prepared for an attack").

Battle begins and the party's cleric and npc cleric begin devastating the hordes by turning them while the other npcs contribute marginally and the magus saves an npc from a volley of arrows and debuffs an entire squadron (5 battalions, each having 50 archers and 3 captains evenly spread outside the town's perimeter). This is when the unexpected happens.

Spellthief, aware of the situation with the generals, hundreds of feet away, decides to go invisible and attempts to kill them by flying in and sneak attacking them (mind you, he was aware IC and OOC that they were high level and away from the battle for a reason- so as to give the PCs and NPCs a chance to defeat the lesser skeletons. Regardless, Spellthief flies in and full attacks one of the vampires, stealing a few spells in the process and dealing SA damage.

He does not get to kill the vampire, sadly and when the turn comes for the warrior vampire, I used Pierce Magical protection feat from CA to remove his AC buffs ( I know the feat may not be eligible to an undead, but I houseruled the monster was). The caster vampire uses a Transdimensional Phantasmal Killer to effectively kill him, using his dead body as a bargaining chip for the party in the town hundreds of feet away to surrender.

Spellthief's players gets, understandably, annoyed. Stating that they are too powerful for him to take on alone. I countered that, had he stayed in town and fought the regular skeletons, with the many buffs he had (his AC was above 40 + blink- clerical buffs to attack), he would've easily taken out 3-4 a round without getting hit, not even drawing attention from the vampire generals hundreds of feet away, whom each turn did nothing but watch.

So my question is simple: was I being unfair with the above scenario? I will gladly change the outcome if that is the case, but I would like input from more veteran DMs.

Thank you in advance.

PlusSixPelican

2012-12-09, 05:59 AM

Uhm, he did kinda play it dumb, but on the other hand, homebrewed monsters WRECK the chance of being able to guess your odds in a situation, so...yes or no? Replaying it might be the safe bet.

molten_dragon

2012-12-09, 06:10 AM

Doesn't really seem that unfair to me. The warrior vampire shouldn't have had pierce magical protection, but that didn't really seem to be too relevant to the outcome of the fight. It was the phantasmal killer spell that killed him right? That has nothing to do with AC. So even if the warrior vampire didn't have that ability, the end result would have been the same.

Basically, it just sounds like your spellthief made a dumb mistake, attacking an enemy alone, that you had warned them was probably too powerful to fight. I'd say you were pretty fair about the whole thing honestly.

Also, it amazes me that you are able to handle DMing for a group of 12 players, with a level range from 4-12. How on earth does that not turn into utter chaos every session?

HunterOfJello

2012-12-09, 06:23 AM

A Spellthief attempts to solo a skeletal army's vampire boss and loses? Sounds pretty normal to me. Player is probably just pissed that his attempt to decapitate an entire army failed. Multiple vampiric army generals aren't supposed to be soloable by a single level 12th level spellthief.

The natural outcome of making a Leeroy Jenkins attempt is that you fail and EVERYONE DIES.

~

Also, he died from Phantasmal Killer? That spell is hard to lose to. You have a natural 9.9+% chance to succeed on it by rolling a 20 on either of the two rolls. You have to get two bad rolls on two different saves on the same spell and not roll a 20 on either roll to get killed by that spell. If you do fail both due to lousy saves and bad rolls, then dieing is what you get.

Andrewmoreton

2012-12-09, 06:32 AM

No
I have done similar things to my PC's and not had a single complaint. If they sneak off on their own and attempt to assassinate powerful enemy leaders were they will have no support and then the dice rolls get them killed that is their problem. He had reasonable in character and out of character warnings of the dangers involved and chose to seek battle on terms which would favour the enemy as he would be away from his colleagues .

DoughGuy

2012-12-09, 06:48 AM

kardar233

2012-12-09, 06:56 AM

The Weak Lord British Postulate says to me that if you put powerful general-types in a battle players will automatically gravitate towards killing them as a strategy, no matter how you may present the situation. This is never going to turn out well; on the one hand, you have the situation at hand where the player failed and had his character killed, or on the other hand you get situations where the player actually kills the guy in question which can be just as bad if not worse. If you want to have the generals of both sides duking it out in magical warfare or whatever, make the players unable to interfere; though personally I wouldn't have them in the battle in the first place.

By the way, your Spellthief player has posted his own thread. I'd suggest reading it to see his take on the situation; he seems quite disgruntled with his character's role on the whole.

Azoth

2012-12-09, 07:02 AM

Socratov

2012-12-09, 07:19 AM

Ehm... let me get this straight. you have an army of skeletons and a spellthief. How do you expect the spellthief to go slay some skeletons with daggers? I mean... rogues and roguelike characters can't do jack **** with skeletons! And you are surpirsed he went after the creatures with some kind of discernible anatomy so he can actually use his classfeatures?

yeah it was stupid, but in his situation there is nothing else he can do. he can take the choice: kill the general and be useful with chance of death or whittle away with toothpicks at an army.

and don't come to me with spellthief spells, they have to steal them first. through sneak attacking. the spellthief casting is abysmal on it's own.

Then there is this curse or ability damage... a melee character without con and str? yeah, real useful. if you put PC's in desperate situations you'd better expect desperate plans.

So between skeletons and physical stats penalty you've doubly crippled his character. Think on that one...

anyway, i advise you to sit down with him and talk. allow him to express his reasons and motivations to do what he did and express your own thoughts on the matter. Only then you knwo if you have been fair or not since fairness deals with expectations.

kardar233

2012-12-09, 09:00 AM

Not too harsh. Do something stupid and pay the consequences.

To me at least, from reading both sides, this battle was a test.

The vamps weren't going to get involved and start attacking anybody, even if the army lost. This was to gauge the power and strategies of the PCs first hand when the numbers were against them.

Oh...they killed the cannon fodder and made it to a general. How interesting.

Taking them head on, on their terms...was suicide.

Either kill the skeletons or flee. Show what you can do and let the enemies see your strength first hand...or flee and keep it a secret. Those are the options.

It's still a matter of expectations. In a stereotypical epic fantasy D&D game, players expect to be major movers and shakers in the campaign world and so a high-level enemy combatant is taken to be a challenge. They don't see themselves as the type to be chopping through the undead horde, they want to be the ones going toe-to-toe with the enemy general and deciding the tide of the battle. This is a very common mindset and I've seen it in a large number of different games.

On the other hand, you might be going for grittier, harder-edged fantasy, where the characters are working within the limits of the larger plot that's going on and are more restricted in their relative power. That's perfectly fine (it's my preferred style) but it doesn't come naturally to most players.

The sense I'm getting from the two sides of this story is that the player's expectations are of the first type while the DM's are of the second, and slugging the player with a DC~30 Phantasmal Killer isn't the best way to communicate this.

GolemsVoice

2012-12-09, 09:17 AM

@kardar233: I totally understand what you're saying, and it might have worked, had the GROUP decided to go for the generals. But a lone spellthief trying to attack TWO generals, while knowing that they are high-level and likely to stay out of the battle? I'd say he did something stupid. Not neccessarily surprising, but foolish nonetheless.

Venusaur

2012-12-09, 09:25 AM

nedz

2012-12-09, 09:25 AM

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263819
This wouldnt happen to be your player would it?

Assuming this is true, then from the other thread

Well, the title basically says it all.
The situation is essentially, I need to be able to reliably hit save dc's of 29-34, as a level 11 character.
I have Iron will, lightning reflexes, and great fortitude(from Races of war, so +3, plus some other effects(not really relevant here))
I also have a cloak of resistance +5
I have a modified belt of magnificence that gives +4 to str, con, dex, cha.

It seems that you have set up a save DC arms race ?
It is unusual for a PC to spend 3 feats on boosting saves and then have two items which do the same, OK the belt has other uses.
The PC would have been better off spending their feats on more offensive options.
Do you routinely through very hard DCs against the party ?
Or is the player simply paranoid ?

Bulldog Psion

2012-12-09, 09:38 AM

While I don't think it was unfair per se, I've often observed that players tend to try to use the situation to their advantage. Give them information, and they are likely to act on it in unexpected ways. It's one of the major ways that being in a role-playing game differs from reading a book; the outcome is subject to the human factor, which in my admittedly limited experience usually results in something totally off-the-wall and unexpected.

Expecting the players to follow a book plot and do what you wanted them to do, while presenting them with a tantalizing alternative that turned out to be a death trap, is pretty much a guarantee that they're not going to do what you want them to do.

Unfair? No, not really, but it doesn't sit entirely right with me, either. Your players were expected to play to a script. When they varied from the script, they were punished with an immediate death.

Heck, if I was looking at the thing tactically, I'd probably do the same as the Spellthief, though maybe with some more planning. "Hey, the DM has set up this horde of mooks with a couple of bosses directing them. Why get tangled up with the mooks when we can take out the headquarters unit? They'll be all over us as soon as we're distracted by the skeletons, anyway."

That said, the solo attack was pretty dumb. It's not the plan to avoid the skeletons and attack the leaders that's the problem, IMO, it's just that they handled it poorly.

But, in my personal opinion, every element that players are presented with should give them some chance of success, even if the DM wants them to do something else. In fact, the DM shouldn't (again, IMO) go in expecting or wanting the players to do some specific thing. Let them figure out what they want to do, don't try to force them into anything, and then roll with whatever they've got in mind. Give them a fighting chance even if it "spoils" your plans.

That doesn't mean an automatic victory, it just means that they're allowed to try anything and have a chance of success, rather than being expected to follow your preconceived idea of how things should unfold.

Really, it comes down to whether you houseruled on the spot everything that was necessary to kill the Spellthief, or if the bosses' rules were already in place. If you changed them on the spot to kill him and thus punish him for not sticking to your idea of what he should do (effectively "zapping" him for not following the "dungeon path") then yes, it was unfair. If not, then it wasn't unfair, but it probably could have been designed better, too.

EDIT: I just read the other thread that was linked while I was typing out this wall of text, and yes, I think that situation was a bit unfair.

molten_dragon

2012-12-09, 09:59 AM

Having read your player's take on this in the other thread, I still don't think the response to this particular situation was all that unfair (he made a dumb move), however the campaign itself seems to be a bit unfair.

Maybe tone down the power level of the enemies some, so your players have a realistic chance of winning fights with them. A 12th level PC should be a major force in a campaign. That's not to say they won't be challenged, and sometimes face enemies that outmatch them, but they shouldn't nearly that outmatched by their foes most of the time.

J-H

2012-12-09, 10:09 AM

A single PC decides to take on a pair of (possibly) vampire generals away from the rest of the battle, away from the rest of the party, in melee, solo?

Stupidity: Causing massive hp loss since the 1970s.

AlanBruce

2012-12-09, 10:23 AM

docnessuno

2012-12-09, 10:31 AM

The only thing i could call "harsh" was the transdimensional phantasmal killer, uless the genereals knew about the adventuring group and the rogue's ring of blinking before the battle.
PK doesn't work on undeads (mind-affecting), and undeads represent the vast majority of anything ethereal you might face, so a transdimensional PK seems like a waste of spell slots unless you know that you are likely to face a blinking enemy.

For everything else (or if the generals had detailed informaton aout the rogue) i agree with what has already been said. If you are willing to take actions that are clearly outlined as risky, you can't whine when they go wrong.

Deophaun

2012-12-09, 10:34 AM

Reading from the other thread: You know what you call 250 of anything? An environmental hazard. You don't expect melee/ranged to waste their time killing environmental hazards. That's for the casters. Think of it this way:you have a monster with 250 hit points, and each melee/ranged attack does, at best, 1 hp of damage. Do you really expect those types of characters to bother?

And then you have enemy casters that can boost a phantasmal killer DC up to 29. I'm left to wonder: what are these vampire generals doing wasting their time on some podunk town (if the "army" described by the players is accurate, that wouldn't be a threat to a city)? Why would they even care to watch their scrub forces in action? There's a huge disconnect there which is going to lead a character to believe that they have a shot at taking one or two of the generals down.

So, what I see is the player acted rationally, the character acted heroically, and the villains acted out of character. Really, four high/epic level generals to watch over 250 CR 1 skeletons? Seriously?

Archmage1

2012-12-09, 10:36 AM

To be fair to me, I do have IC reasons to target them(a reward for their return)
There were warnings OOC about their power, but, seeing as every enemy has been at least 10 levels over us, I more or less ignored them.
I was not expecting pierce magical protection.
I also had an AC of 46, and blink, which I was expecting to accomplish keeping me alive for a round of two.
Pierce magical protection ended recitation, alter self, shield, recitation, haste, and a couple of other effects

Was it a smart more? not from an OOC perspective.
But had I not done it, I would not have helped with the fight at all, as burning charges to fight a cr 1 skeleton is just not worth it.
Was it a smart move? I actually think so, from an IC perspective.

awa

2012-12-09, 10:46 AM

from what i can see killing him was not unfair but the encounter design was. an encounter where the player leaving the room and taking a nap will have no affect on the outcome is a bad encounter particularly a major encounter.

From what i can see the spell thief could not meaningfully affect the skeletons. and even if they wasted limited resources (the wands of grave strike) their damge out put would be negligible compared to the clerics turning.

now here is the thing with a fight this big with this many participants id expect this fight to last a long time and while it might be an epic fight for survival in charecter out of character it would be mind numbingly boring to sit around for a few hours and watch other people do stuff. when people get bored they look for something more interesting to do.

now of course i was not their so i could be wrong or misunderstanding the situation and i even know people who as far as i can tell get more enjoyment out of screwing over the party (themselves included) then actually accomplishing anything, but based on me i tend to get bored when i have nothing to do.

ShriekingDrake

2012-12-09, 10:51 AM

I've read both threads, yours and Archmage1's.

I don't think you were unfair. (I admit that I don't get the style of game you're playing, but whatever works for you and your players is cool.) Your player had ample warning that jumping into the pit of doom alone and naked might result in his death . . . and he jumped.

That said, the question I have for you is this: why do you all play together? D&D creates opportunities for a variety of types of play, which are not mutually exclusive. You can foster them all, more or less, and you can ignore some and herald others. For some gamers, its playing together that matters most, for others it's the relationship each has with his or her character, and for others it is the story telling. For some, it is the chance to role-play--to act and bring a theatrical flourish to a game--, for others it is understanding, using, and manipulating rules, and for some it is a chance to compete with each other or the DM. Still others like responding to the vagaries of the luck of the roll, where some like the opportunity to craft a story (without doing the writing), and others play to escape. There are a lot of reasons to play and lots of combinations of those reasons and combinations of players with combinations of reasons.

As a DM, I try to do two things along these lines. 1) I try to get a sense of what each player wants out of the game and I try to give it to him or her and 2) I try to gather groups whose gaming preferences are possible to gel. So, as a DM, I think you want to ask yourself whether you saw this player's reaction to the scenario as predictable. You knew he would likely not be successful in killing those vampires and that they could easily dispatch him. Some players would be happy to take their licking, chalk it up to a bad call on their part, and get to rolling up the next character. Other players would be irked that the DM presented a Kobayashi Maru.

I have a player, who would have acted and reacted just like Archmage1. I have several times had to hit him with in our game is called the "stupid stick" and I did this by clearly beating him, without killing him. I would not, for instance, have used transdimensional Phantasmal Killer but something that would incapacitate him. It was not a fight you'd intended to have happen so there was no reason to have those vampires go all out. Heck, you could have had them conjure something to deal with him while they continued to watch the game.

So I don't think you were unfair. I just think that if the goal of your game is for everyone to have fun, you may have been imprudent.

Archmage1

2012-12-09, 10:52 AM

In Alan's defense: So far, the RP has been awesome, but the combat has been so stacked I am seriously wondering why I have even been trying.
I am not trying to screw over the party(even lost a level to death for refusing to accept help from the bad guys.)

AlanBruce

2012-12-09, 10:53 AM

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263819
This wouldnt happen to be your player would it?

Based on his half of the story you are being a little unfair with how high the saves are, but it was still a really bad move on his behalf to go off alone.

He would be, in fact, the player in question. They have faced some enemies in the past with very high DCs, true. However, I have not used these enemies (which are recurrent) as an auto kill scenario - except once, when the spellthief in question neglected some help from one of them and decided to insult her mentally, prompting her to show up and kill him, just to leave away after that- but that was a different scenario and they were not in a battle currently. Are some of the NPCs in the world overly powerful? Yes, they are. Are some of these directly engaging the PCs currently? No. The vampires in question are strong, but they are killable as a team. The spellthief has managed to solo many encounters in the past- a glaistig sorcerer, a god infused druid, a greater doppleganger assassin, an astral deva, to name a few. I was, as I have stated earlier, quite clear about these two vampires being far, far away from battle and well guarded. Maybe the spellthief thought he could take them based on previous battles where he soloed the encounter.

There is, of course a detail that I neglected to mention. A few in fact. Before the battle was even brought to the game, they were told by an NPC that "there was no shame in retreat". They were also given more than one place to go before heading to this place. Lastly, the cleric's player rolled his save and got a natural 20, succeeding completely and negating death. I am more than willing to take that natural 20 and hope the spellthief leaves that area and retreats back to battle or hides while the cleric buffs him again.

Archmage1

2012-12-09, 10:56 AM

well...
against the doppleganger: the wiz and cleric were there.
Glastig: I had craven, and I lost
druid: again entire party
deva: random luck.
(note: after glastig, craven was banned)

Threadnaught

2012-12-09, 12:00 PM

How does one make their players run from an encounter that could wipe them in a single round?
Seriously, how do you put some Epic Level god in the world and put up warning signs about it being out of their league pre Epic, that actually discourage them from going after it? Players see something stronger than them and most of the time they don't see the risk, they just see the challenge.

It appears to have been a shock to Archmage1, seeing his character completely wiped out after expecting to single handedly save the day, but he appears to be over it and if you can give him opportunities to use his class sometime in the future, he should be perfectly fine with everything that's happened.
He's worried about his class becoming useless, so you'll have to throw in some other challenges. Ones that don't involve Undead, or even Combat would be best.

awa

2012-12-09, 12:05 PM

I am not trying to screw over the party(even lost a level to death for refusing to accept help from the bad guys.)

assuming this was in reference to my comment i did not intend to imply you were trying to be a detriment to your party i was just giving that as an extreme example of people who don't care if their effective or not.

Archmage1

2012-12-09, 12:09 PM

I was not expecting to save the day, but I was figuring that a blinking character with ac 46 would survive for more than one round...

And the character is already useless. can't hide or see(enemies have much higher skills), can't bluff(complaints about Glibness), can't fight(damage is not relevant against minor enemies(not using gravestrike), and against major enemies, their AC/Health is so high there is no point.
No devices to disable, so no use there...

So, I am filling the role of the waste of space. and I think I can be ok with that. I just need to stop playing like my character can do anything that a commoner 1 can't.

Lapak

2012-12-09, 12:19 PM

'Running off alone to fight the major bad guys, die when they focus fire on you while your party is distracted' is not unfair.

But - assuming that the player's thread is not completely inaccurate - 'all major villains are 20+ ECL above the party, with save DCs that require 19-20 on your best, most stacked-up save' does not sound like a fun campaign to play in. (If it was a sandbox game, and the players had chosen to walk into this, that would be different, but it doesn't sound like it.)

On top of that, the entire encounter smells a bit of 'you'll follow the plot and like it' to me - any encounter where the NPCs are high enough level to make an individual contribution, and the *allied* NPCs outnumber the party 3-to-1 has reduced the game to where the DM is basically running a solo game for himself. If your players are generally having fun, more power to you, but I don't think I'd enjoy the game as described because while the cause-and-effect in general terms is not unfair, the players don't seem to have much agency.

AlanBruce

2012-12-09, 12:23 PM

On the contrary! The Spellthief has been, so far, the most efficient damage dealer in the party (even more so than the cleric). The undead part of the campaign is fairly recent and even then, he has gravestrike wands placed in his daggers + ring of blinking for extra damage through sneak attacks.

I would dare say he has accomplished a lot in the campaign so far, skill and combat wise.

Archmage1

2012-12-09, 12:25 PM

To counter that, no more Craven, dropping my damage by 50%, and the cleric now knows how to deal damage.

Ariaspinner

2012-12-09, 12:25 PM

Unfair seems unlikely. The thief did basically commit suicide.

Still why place the very big bad guys right where the players can do something stupid like attacking even when warned against it. They could just as easily have watched from afar by scrying?

If I were the thief I would just refuse to be raised and make a new character less useless around undead.

Twilightwyrm

2012-12-09, 12:26 PM

...Alright, I believe I'm seeing a pattern here.
I'll start by echoing what's been said here a few times, that what you did, on its own, wasn't entirely unfair (but still somewhat, as will be gotten to in a second), but that you have absolutely no right not to expect pretty much this exact thing to happen.
First in terms of unfairness. I'll say this, so as to avoid undue length: "Powerful" is not the same thing as "inexplicably prepared to kill you". Given the circumstances that had been established, I might be inclined to feel a bit shafted as a PC in similar circumstances, and as a third party, I cannot say that he is entirely wrong.
But second, and more importantly, in terms of predictability: In the campaign's past, you state that this character has been insta-killed offhand for mentally insulting someone. Your player mentions that the party has been pretty routinely been facing opponents far exceeding their power level, and as such has been facing abnormally high DCs (to the point that, as can be seen by his character sheet, he has put significant focus into buffing his defenses). Further, it has been established, again by you, that this character has taking down, even soloing, various foes of this sort during the course of the campaign setting. All this background establishes a character that is feeling frustrated, both with the ease of him and his party being dominated by enemies, and simultaneously feeling that, based on having done so in the past, maybe just maybe he is getting somewhere in being able to kill them. Now, in this encounter, you've already saddled the party (and him in particular since he relies on these states) with a penalty to str and con, both increasing frustration and adding a level of desperation. Further, you've given them a battle against 250 skeletons, where as previously mentioned, can take out only 3-4 per round. Let's re-clarify: You've given the assassin character a challenge in which he is both facing pathetically weak enemies, and simultaneously unable to meaningfully contribute to the fight, since there are so many. And the, you just so happen to also present two "powerful" targets that are nevertheless unaware of his abilities (which you indicated via the fact that they are sitting back and watching the battle), that, if he successfully takes even one down, will mean he has contributed something to the fight. So you have an already frustrated, and somewhat desperate character, who cannot meaningfully contribute to the fight, and then you've just given him a way to do so, under circumstances where he has prevailed before. And you sincerely expect him to stay back and do the equivalent of nothing? Not just that, expend his own resources (charges from the gravestrike wands) to do nothing?
I am often a DM for the group I play with, so don't get me wrong, I get where you are coming from here. It is difficult to both create fun encounters, manage the power of all the players, routinely challenge them, and on top of that play amateur psychologist so you can predict how each PC might behave. I even get how, at the time, it might have seemed perfectly reasonable for him to die against the vampire generals you have established to be highly powerful. But at least, in retrospect, can you see where he might be coming from here?

AlanBruce

2012-12-09, 12:45 PM

Archmage1

2012-12-09, 12:47 PM

awa

2012-12-09, 01:09 PM

if he had grave strike at will maybe that would be a viable choice but even still if the cleric is really dropping 40 a round his damge output is irrelevant it wont meaningfully affect the outcome one way or the other.

at that point killing a handful of skeletons every round is just busy work

Archmage1

2012-12-09, 01:11 PM

Grave strike is a swift. 40 charges on the wand remain.

Twilightwyrm

2012-12-09, 03:45 PM

Of course I can. The vampires were sent to oversee the battle and take someone from town. Someone whom the PCs are traveling with. The main villain in this arc is not present. The vampires are not epic, but they do have high mental and physical stats. Given the buffs the spellthief had (not to AC, but to attack), he could've easily taken out a few skeletons each round. The 250 skeletons were not in one same group, they were scattered around town in groups of fifty, making a break into their ranks less deadly. Yes, the clerics were burning them down each turn majorly, but the spellthief could've just as simply done his part in one of the other groups. Again, undead are not always present and this PC has proven to be quite effective in other encounters, as well as very resourceful. The vampires were built without the spellthief in mind. Where they supposed to be fought alone? No, they weren't. Did I expect the spellthief to attempt to take them down with a lowered Constitution while having been able to be unscathed killing the skeletons (remember, gravestrike + blink + sneak attack= taking down 4 to 5 skeletons per turn, since I believe he was also hasted.)? Not at all, which prompted me to ask the player OOC and IC if that was the course of action he wanted to follow.

What the vampires were doing there is irrelevant. The problem I pointed out wasn't with them attacking the town (that was someone else's argument), it was with the set-up of the battle. Hell, it might have been better if the skeletons were all in one group, because at least that way the Spellthief could have tried stopping them at a choke point, and by utilizing his high AC, contributed to the battle by blocking that point. Instead, because the skeletons are scattered, all he can do is dive into one of the groups of 50, and take out, quoting you, "a few" per round, which in the end means basically nothing, and expending his gravestrike wand's resources to acomplish what essentially amounts to nothing, while letting the vampires assess his capabilities, leaving him effectively less powerful if/when they do enter the fight. (Seriously, why would you expect him to think a good use of his Gravestrike wands is taking out a handful of CR 1 skeletons every round?)
I know the vampires were not entirely built with the spellthief in mind, but that's not the point. The point is they just happened to have the exact abilities to take him down (one of which you admit isn't normally legal on a vampire, and the other, as commented by other posters, a wizard would have very little reason to normally prepare unless they actually anticipated fighting a blinking/etc. opponent). And more to the point, they were exploiting a weakness that you gave him. As I said, having the PCs saddled with that curse doesn't make them inclined to retreat, it makes them feel vulnerable, and therefore desperate. Desperate PCs are more likely to try and remove the source of whatever is causing them problems (in this case the vampires commanding the skeletons), because running only adds another problem they feel they'll have to deal with further down the line. Hell, I did basically the same thing, under basically the same circumstances (zombies and wights instead of skeletons, and a Spell-Stitched Wight Cleric with two Shadow Elementals instead of vampires), when a Barbarian I had was suffering from negative levels, only I was fortunate enough to survive the encounter. (Since we were low enough level that save-or-dies weren't really around) Does this make sense?

Oscredwin

2012-12-09, 04:00 PM

The most important thing is don't tell the player he's having fun. If he thinks the combat dynamic is set against him, he can't use his skills (as a skill monkey), and he is trying to figure out how to play a "waste of space" telling him that he's the most awesome person there doesn't help. He needs to feel awesome, not be told that he's awesome.

250 Skeletons and the cleric is burning down 40/round. The cleric will destroy the army in 6 rounds. If the Ultimate Magus throws one fireball and fries more than 10 it reduces to 5 rounds. If the spell thief can move and full attack, always get SA on the skeletons, and always hits, me *MIGHT* save the cleric a turning attempt or the magus a spell and reduce the duration of the combat by half a round. He could have taken a nap and not impacted the combat.

More traditional encounter design with the generals would have been to make them weaker (cr 12-14) with a group of body guards. The Spellthief could have snuck past the bodyguards and tried to solo the generals, but if the party attacked them all together, they would have had to fight the bodyguards.

Also, houseruling in favor of the monsters (PMC waving the con requirement) and against the PC's (outlawing craven) is problematic.

demigodus

2012-12-09, 04:32 PM

The vampires were sent to oversee the battle and take someone from town. Someone whom the PCs are traveling with.

Did the PCs know about this? Did they have anyway to know that those generals weren't going to jump into the fight when they were vulnerable?

The vampires are not epic, but they do have high mental and physical stats. Given the buffs the spellthief had (not to AC, but to attack), he could've easily taken out a few skeletons each round. The 250 skeletons were not in one same group, they were scattered around town in groups of fifty, making a break into their ranks less deadly.

The difference would have been trivial. Did anyone get killed because the spellthief didn't help clearing the skeletons (I mean, other then the spellthief)? Did anyone even come close to death, that wouldn't have if the spellthief had helped?

The vampires were built without the spellthief in mind.

So, you specifically admit to having the generals prepare to counter a character that they have never met before? Who is far below them? Who's abilities they don't know about? And this specifically has to be the one character that is NOT able to meaningfully contribute in the encounter at hand?

Where they supposed to be fought alone? No, they weren't. Did I expect the spellthief to attempt to take them down with a lowered Constitution while having been able to be unscathed killing the skeletons (remember, gravestrike + blink + sneak attack= taking down 4 to 5 skeletons per turn, since I believe he was also hasted.)? Not at all, which prompted me to ask the player OOC and IC if that was the course of action he wanted to follow.

You are dealing with PCs. If you present an opponent at them, ALWAYS expect them to attack it. Especially if they have ever had any success against enemies that you gave similar danger-level-descriptions to. Especially if the only reason that the PC is killed is because you house rule against them, AND use a spell that is custom tailored for them. And always expect them to run. Those two are very frequent decisions by PCs.

AlanBruce

2012-12-09, 10:27 PM

Did the PCs know about this? Did they have anyway to know that those generals weren't going to jump into the fight when they were vulnerable?

The difference would have been trivial. Did anyone get killed because the spellthief didn't help clearing the skeletons (I mean, other then the spellthief)? Did anyone even come close to death, that wouldn't have if the spellthief had helped?

So, you specifically admit to having the generals prepare to counter a character that they have never met before? Who is far below them? Who's abilities they don't know about? And this specifically has to be the one character that is NOT able to meaningfully contribute in the encounter at hand?

You are dealing with PCs. If you present an opponent at them, ALWAYS expect them to attack it. Especially if they have ever had any success against enemies that you gave similar danger-level-descriptions to. Especially if the only reason that the PC is killed is because you house rule against them, AND use a spell that is custom tailored for them. And always expect them to run. Those two are very frequent decisions by PCs.

1. The PCs did know that one in their group was going to be claimed by the General's boss. At one point in the battle, one of the Generals asked the party to surrender the person they had to them, since the vampires had the spellthief at near death (7hp).

2. Indeed, one NPC died as a result of an arrow volley fired at the group. Another NPC was reduced to the negatives and the party's wizard lost a sizeable chunk of life as well.

3. The vampires were designed thematically with the environment they were in. In this case, a portion of the negative energy plane. Through backstory, one of them had been an inquisitor with the ability to use pierce magical protection, later turned by the BBEG, but retaining her abilities. Truth is, when the spellthief came into view after attacking, they could see him blink and thus, acted accordingly with what I had previously built into them.

Archmage1

2012-12-09, 10:29 PM

Alan, I think the point about the transdimensional spell feat is this
1. It is a bad feat choice. Really. There are what, 2 spells that it counters? and one of them lets you do the same thing
2. You actually had a transdimensional spell memorized. See above.

icefractal

2012-12-09, 11:12 PM

The thing that doesn't make sense to me is the whole "uber-powerful generals watching the battle and doing nothing" setup. It may be a trope, but it's kind of a stupid trope, especially in D&D.

Let's say you're a vampire general of an army. Your skeletons are razing a town - good, no need to get your hands dirty, everything is going according to plan.
But then a handful of jerks show up and start blasting your undead apart by the dozens. Do you:
A) Just sit there like an idiot, wait until your army is destroyed, and then fly off.
B) At an opportune moment, gank one of the enemies (probably the Cleric). Depending on how easy or difficult that was, proceed to gank the rest or retreat.

As a player, if I saw those generals, and knew even roughly their capabilities? They become the new priority #1. If we can't defeat them, we may as well start to retreat now, because they'll swoop in and pwn us if we destroy too many minions.

icefractal

2012-12-09, 11:19 PM

Also, on the campaign in general. I'm not saying a situation where a higher-level NPC poofs in to kill one of the PCs for being rude is always bad. But I am saying that 99% of the time, it's a bad thing and a sign of a "novel writer" campaign. Evaluate very carefully whether all these significantly higher-level foes are a good idea.

AlanBruce

2012-12-09, 11:25 PM

The generals were watching from afar precisely to watch what the PCs could do. The PCs were fighting the first wave and the Generals knew that one of them was a cleric. They wanted to wait to see how many times it could turn their armies before making a more pertinent move, which would be to capture the NPC they had been sent to retrieve.

demigodus

2012-12-09, 11:44 PM

2. Indeed, one NPC died as a result of an arrow volley fired at the group. Another NPC was reduced to the negatives and the party's wizard lost a sizeable chunk of life as well.

And how many of those would have been prevented had the Spellthief been attacking the minions? The question isn't how big a threat the minions were. The pertinent question is, how much could the spellthief have reduced the threat by.

3. The vampires were designed thematically with the environment they were in. In this case, a portion of the negative energy plane. Through backstory, one of them had been an inquisitor with the ability to use pierce magical protection, later turned by the BBEG, but retaining her abilities. Truth is, when the spellthief came into view after attacking, they could see him blink and thus, acted accordingly with what I had previously built into them.

That still leaves the issue, of why did the caster have Transdimensional Phantasmal Killer prepared? Basically we aren't familiar with your setting environment that would make this a rational spell preparation.

And that once again the spellthief should, as far as we can tell, not have known about his pierce magical protection abilities. (this particular one isn't an argument about fairness, as much as why the spellthief's action was perfectly reasonable and rational).

The generals were watching from afar precisely to watch what the PCs could do. The PCs were fighting the first wave and the Generals knew that one of them was a cleric. They wanted to wait to see how many times it could turn their armies before making a more pertinent move, which would be to capture the NPC they had been sent to retrieve.

So they knew the generals were going to attack them. When it was the least convenient for them. In DnD, initiative matters. If you know someone is going to initiative an attack against you, your best bet is to preemptively attack them. That or run away. Would you have preferred if the PCs had just thrown that NPC at the generals and then run for it?

AlanBruce

2012-12-10, 12:21 AM

The caster did not have a transdimensional spell prepared. She couldn't because she was a sorcerer. And yes, there were a few times were the Generals asked for the NPC to be given to them. A parley of sorts.

A little backstory on these Generals:

They are sisters. One was a sorcerer, the other a warrior type. They heard of a large undead infestation in the mountains and prepared for years, marshalling a tremendous army to fight off the undead in that place. As such, the warrior prepared herself with Pierce Magical Protection in case they fought casting/buffing undead. The sorceress got Transdimensional Spell in case of ghosts, which were rumored to be in the area.

The spellthief could've borrowed spells from the magus and created some defense in the battlefield, while the magus debuffed one of the archer groups. Thus reducing ally drops.

Stormageddon

2012-12-10, 12:22 AM

Ok, so after reading both posts. I've got to say I would have done what the spell thief did in the same situation. Use my abilities to the best effect in the combat.

I agreed that the spell thief/rogues in a party of a Magus and a opt cleric would really have nothing to do in a mass army of undead combat. However there is some big bad just sitting over their watching. That's my target. Might not be what the DM expected, but if I was the player it's what I would have done as well. Hind sight is always 20/20.

Do I think the DM was being unfair? I'm going to say no. If the battle was premade. The spells for the generals selected before combat then no the generals did what they should have done.

Big risks sometimes have big pay offs and sometimes they squash you like a bug. It sounds like it worked a lot for this player in the past, but just not this time.

Things the DM should be taking away for this experience.

1. This sounded like a big encounter for you. Well planned and epic, but you left really no room for the spell thief to really shine that wasn't certain death.

2. Don't open the door for certain death situations players walk through them like there is candy on the other side.

3. Don't, and I mean do not use save/die spells on PCs. There was a whole thread a while back on this subject. It's always going to end in tears and hurt feelings. Just saying.

Hope you guys can move past this encounter, and continue having fun playing together. Good luck! :smallsmile:

AlanBruce

2012-12-10, 12:45 AM

Thank you all for your amazing perspectives and critiques. We are enjoying the campaign currently and will resolve this battle hopefully soon.

demigodus

2012-12-10, 12:49 AM

The caster did not have a transdimensional spell prepared. She couldn't because she was a sorcerer. And yes, there were a few times were the Generals asked for the NPC to be given to them. A parley of sorts.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense now. I was getting the impression that the general was a wizard, and hence the transdimensional phantasmal killer wasn't making much sense.

AlanBruce

2012-12-10, 01:06 AM

Thank you. I was reading all these posts about her preparing spells and felt I needed to clarify that.

Story

2012-12-10, 01:20 AM

Where is this thread talking about using Save Or Dies on PCs?

Stormageddon

2012-12-10, 01:58 AM

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228926

Blam! Seems to be a mixed bag of opions, but it's agreed that monsters using SoDs = dead PCs.

avr

2012-12-10, 02:53 AM

On the core issue, I can see both sides. Better design for this encounter might have given the spellthief something more to do than be a much less effective version of the cleric, but there again maybe he should have accepted that this just wasn't his moment to shine.

Just one thing about later comments though. If you're playing a level 12 character, you should have no compunctions at all about spending wand charges for level 1 spells. 15 GP/round should be nothing to you. If resupplying wands would be an issue then you need to work on that rather than hoard charges.

Archmage1

2012-12-10, 07:02 AM

Already established that the major enemies will all be undead, and that local merchants will not sell the wand.
Making the charges limited resources.
Plus I just spent all of my money.

awa

2012-12-10, 08:12 AM

the problem with just accepting it's not his moment to shine is if the combat runs long/ he completely useless. In a fight like this where its possible his action will have no effect on the overall encounter and due to the "epic" nature of the fight might last hours might make that problematic.

Deadline

2012-12-10, 01:23 PM

Umm, maybe I'm missing something important here, but my understanding of the forces arrayed against them are the following:

5 groups of 50 skeleton archers each with 3 "skeleton captains" in the rear (these captains are ettins, trolls, and owlbear skeletons).

Is there a reason the Spellthief couldn't smite the "skeleton captains"? I would figure that those would be prime targets for him. Sure, wasting charges for 1HD skeletons is pointless and not fun, but "taking out important targets" seems to be what the "skeleton captains" are for. That the Spellthief chose to go for the "very powerful vampire generals" isn't surprising, but the statement that he couldn't contribute meaningfully against the skeleton army seems disingenuous. Unless there's something I'm missing about these "skeleton captains".

AlanBruce

2012-12-10, 03:37 PM

The groups of skeletons are spread far enough to allow a spellthief to move silently behind them and start sneak attacking the captains. In fact, the captains give the archers a small bonus to their attack rolls when launching an arrow volley.

dantiesilva

2012-12-11, 01:04 AM

Hi I am the cleric.. I leave the captains their just for that reason that was stated. It conserves turning checks which I have no shortage of, and grants the other members a chance to shine in the long battle. Sure by round 4 250 or less skeletons will be dead, but it as said will be a long battle and the more time spent on the captains and not on the people peppering us with arrows the more of us die. In the past The spellthief has stolen all the glory, and though not his fault, I was learning how great a cleric actually was, it was known to all of us from a book we read in game what was here and that armies had disappeared. We were given other options of places to go. We choose the undead place. To be expected then that we fight undead and that while my cleric and NPC cleric run around blasting the archers the captains are being taken out by those with less resources but are just as capable.

Please no write up please no write up please no write up....

Socratov

2012-12-11, 02:34 AM

You know, this thread is becoming more and more interesting, we could start a bet (for honor and bragging rights ofcourse) how long it takes until we mee the complete cast :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, so far we have an undead campaign, a spellthief with (very) limited gravestrike wands, a turning macine cleric (Radiant Servant of Pelor?) and a few others. In the past spellthief shone in combat by accident (a little too much). the undead part was chosen (I wonder how the votes were) and history dictates that going after the big guys actually works well. Now we have a supiciously (there are reasons, but still) anti spellthief optimised vampire general (epic lvls) that seemed to kill the spellthief in just about 1 round with transdimensional (useless feat, but justified, barely, in story) phantasmal killer. Also a nerf on behalf of the spellthief: he's lost craven, one of the feats sneakattackers really crave (pardon my klatchian).

Question: if the vampire generals were afraid of ghosts, why didn't they use force spells (those seem to work just fine on ethereal creatures), since it saves a precious featslot? Why transdimensional spell? it only really matters against blinking (else force effects 20% chance of failing, transdimensional spell negates that penalty).

Another question, what would happen if the whole party went after the generals, would you still try to kill one of the players with phantasmal killer? (transdimensional or not)?

And becuase the best things come in 3s: if you want the spellthief to attack skeletons, why do you make wands of gravestrike so rare? by making gravestrike wands impossible to get by you effectively discourage the spellthief of attacking skeletons but sulk in a corner doing nothing. If you wanted the spellthief player to shine a little less, why didn't you tell him so? (okay, cheating, this is a double question)

AlanBruce

2012-12-11, 02:43 AM

The party is free to fly off and fight these generals. As a team, chances are they could defeat them. The problem here is that, in campaign, the general's leader wants an npc that travels with the party. This individual is quite interested in the npc and will use his minions to do. However, should the party decide to take on these generals and kill them, chances are the leader will send another. Of course, the party has ways of leaving the place. This part is by no means railroaded. They have, as has been stated, other places where hey can go.

The general used the most efficient way to get rid of the spellthief who was blinking. That is, an outright SoD spell. Could she have used force spells? Yes, but it would have taken longer to deal with the nuisance that had just stabbed her.

TuggyNE

2012-12-11, 03:40 AM

The general used the most efficient way to get rid of the spellthief who was blinking. That is, an outright SoD spell. Could she have used force spells? Yes, but it would have taken longer to deal with the nuisance that had just stabbed her.

I believe the question was, why was Transdimensional Spell ever a part of the build in the first place? It's not the only way to deal with ghosts (just take a force damage spell known, which would often be useful in other situations as well), and takes up a feat slot.

AlanBruce

2012-12-11, 03:49 AM

When I built these NPCs, before the campaign was even run here, I had the back story written for these generals in my notes. I wanted this sorceress to be as versatile as possible. Now, transdimensional spell may sound too far fetched- and I'm sure many think so. However, one of the aspects I bring into my campaigns heavily (besides high DCs), is story. The PCs have just met these generals- and I use the term "general" loosely. They are overseers for the battle currently taking place. If the PCs decide to stay and deal with them in any mater, there is a chance that their story may be unveiled, thus expanding the lore of the campaign world and why they are there and do what they do.

Deophaun

2012-12-11, 04:25 AM

So if the party killed the generals, then new ones would pop into existence to erase their victory. Yeah, that's unfair.

To the spellthief: replace your gravestrike wands with a greater truedeath crystal and go for a wand of wings of cover. Don't worry about saves. Block line of effect and be done with it.

AlanBruce

2012-12-11, 05:04 AM

If the party managed to defeat the generals, there would be a rather large window of opportunity- either by rebuffing or outright fleeing if someone else is sent after the npc they are protecting. NPC, I must add, that travels with them, so it's not like they would abandon this character.

The sphere of influence of this BBEG is limited (again, I use "BBEG" very loosely). By 12th level, the magus can teleport them to any known location traveled so far, leaving this place permanently.

Would XP be gained from time and actions spent here? Yes.

Would it create a plot hook for the PCs when they level up later should they decide to return? I would hope so.

I believe either myself or one of my players stated that there were other paths to take. By taking this one, if they choose to flee or fight, they will have learned more about what is happening overall in the campaign.

NichG

2012-12-11, 08:32 AM

I'd say this sounds like a fairly high-powered campaign that has become somewhat of an arms race for the Spellthief and now the Cleric. This isn't strictly bad, since arms-races can be fun for optimization minded players, especially with fixed power thresholds in the game (e.g. there are really really powerful things in the world, and if you can do well enough to beat them you open up new avenues of plot that would not have existed otherwise). But they can also be frustrating when they arise from a miscommunication about dramatic conventions in play and so on (e.g. GM thinks 'they get to meet the BBEG early and learn his abilities so they can prep later' and the players think 'okay, hes the guy we're after this session').

I'm going to say that whether or not this particular encounter was unfair is actually irrelevant. The absolute most important thing is to have the GM and players share a set of expectations. A GM who says 'these guys are really powerful and you shouldn't fight them yet' either OOC or as an NPC creates one of two expectations depending what happens next. If the players attack and win (worse even, if one player solos it), then that group of PCs will be far less likely to take such warnings in the future, assuming its just that NPCs underestimate them. On the other hand, if they're trivially defeated or even just squeak out a win with a pyrrhic victory, it teaches the expectation that yes, there will be things that cannot be practically defeated just because the party decides to try. The best suggestion I think was earlier, involving such high-end opponents using nonlethal methods; it makes the point but it doesn't really penalize the player for testing the boundaries and establishing those expectations.

My personal optimal here is to have an encounter the party faces twice at the same power level - the first time they're unprepared and are defeated or driven back. The second time, they plan for it and win easily. That establishes the expectation that smart play is important - there are things in the world that will kill you if you just charge in, but if you coordinate or plan or learn their weaknesses or fight with attrition then you can take them.

I should say though, some players just do not like the idea of seeing on-screen things they cannot hope to defeat or dominate. This can be a difficult situation since it can drastically limit the sorts of campaigns that can be run for the group (though you can balance this a bit by giving them big targets that they can take out solo, it has the danger of setting up bad expectations).

Talderas

2012-12-11, 09:44 AM

Alan: No gravestrike, as I am not going to burn a wand to kill things that my participation would save the cleric ONE ROUND of actions...
so, 1d4-1 piercing or slashing per attack, with 5 attacks a round, accomplishes precisly nothing against the skeletons. So I went for enemies that were actually worth my time to attack, and were the characters current goal...

Even so, you made a poor choice. You chose to attack something that your character should have known was too powerful for him to handle on your own. You had at least four options.

1. Attack skeleton captains.

The ettins and whatever that were a bit beefier than CR1 skeletons. That would likely have been an acceptable usage of gravestrike and you wouldn't have charged in by yourself and gotten killed. It might have also caused issue with the skeleton ranks with them losing their captains. Additionally, it means that the cleric doesn't have to burn turning HD against the captains.

Note: I was writing this reply before I saw that the cleric posted and said he was ignoring the captains for precisely the reason I described and the DM stating that the captains were buffing the archers.

2. Attack the skeletons.

Surprising, event though you would have done no damage against the skeletons, this is not a bad action. You were there, arguably, to help save the town. Even if you weren't damaging the skeletons, they wouldn't be hurting you much. In essence, you would be tanking large groups of enemies with very little risk to yourself. Additionally, you wouldn't have charged in by yourself and gotten killed.

3. Attack the generals.

This is what you did and you did it without support. You did it without intel on the situation. That you died is not surprising. The method of dying may be and how quickly it happened may be but that you did die is not. So why do it?

4. Do nothing.

You could have elected to do nothing and wait for your party members to mop up so you could go after the generals as a team. You would have been far less likely to die doing this. You also would not have given any info to the generals about your capabilities.

shaikujin

2012-12-11, 10:42 AM

So my question is simple: was I being unfair with the above scenario? I will gladly change the outcome if that is the case, but I would like input from more veteran DMs.

Hope you don't take it the wrong way, but I'm actually dying to know if you have already changed the outcome and how it was done.

Of the 37 or so responses so far, majority (around 26) was of one of the following opinion:

1) Rethink/re-balance/re-play the scenario/campaign/opponents
2) It was unfair
3) They would do the same thing as the spellthief under the same scenario

Other semi-related questions:

How do GMs handle scenarios where the plot requires you to somehow capture overly resourceful PCs (who can run/teleport away)?

Or in the same vein as this thread, how to prevent players from killing (or being accidentally killed by) a plot device?

Pandiano

2012-12-11, 11:11 AM

Hope you don't take it the wrong way, but I'm actually dying to know if you have already changed the outcome and how it was done.

Of the 37 or so responses so far, majority (around 26) was of one of the following opinion:

1) Rethink/re-balance/re-play the scenario/campaign/opponents
2) It was unfair
3) They would do the same thing as the spellthief under the same scenario

Other semi-related questions:

How do GMs handle scenarios where the plot requires you to somehow capture overly resourceful PCs (who can run/teleport away)?

Or in the same vein as this threat, not kill (or be killed accidentally) by a plot device?

Remember though, not everybody with an opposite opinion to that posts :-)
I personally am totally fine with how the OP did handle things. If have quite some years of GM experience and my style is not to cater everything to the players. If he went alone against powerful generals he should have a fairly high chance of being raped and eaten.
His ego has nothing to do with it. Even if he did those things in the past has nothing to do with it. How comes that he demands something to be beatable, let alone soloable? He has become reckless and paid for it.
What should he do instead? The world does not evolve around the PCs. The villains don't think like "ah, they've got a spellthief, lets get some additional targets for him to slaughter to be satisfied."
Retreat is always an option. Evalue your options and chances. If you are against "unfair" odds, retreat. If you jump right in, expect the realistic outcome of death.

Edit: minor spelling issues, my phone hates me.

worldeater47

2012-12-11, 11:18 AM

Just tossing my 2cp in here overall I do not believe it was unfair.
The reasoning I am using for this and one that it looks like most people are forgetting is there were intermediate level enemies that the spell thief could easily go for (each of the squads of 50 skeletons had 3 captains, ala the first post). He was given the option of fight guys that could kill him, fight really weak enemies, or fight things that he could fight effectively.
Also if I was DMing I would have it so the skeletons lose interest/control if there captains are gone (not sure if the OP would but would make sense). In doing it that way the cleric and ultimate magus are defending against the ranks while the spell thief is having fights that will end the assault.

AlanBruce

2012-12-11, 02:08 PM

demigodus

2012-12-11, 03:30 PM

We agreed to have the battle redone. This time, I moved both generals 500ft. away from the battle, so as to discourage anyone from going after them. So far, it has been going rather well. The PC and NPC cleric have been decimating some of the groups while the Magus has taken to protecting as many npc allies as he can. The spellthief is currently engaging one of the skeletal captains after successfully sneaking behind enemy lines.

Now quick! have one of the generals transdimensional phantasmal killer the spellthief, and then use him as a bargaining chip to get the NPC that they want!

AlanBruce

2012-12-11, 04:37 PM

Now quick! have one of the generals transdimensional phantasmal killer the spellthief, and then use him as a bargaining chip to get the NPC that they want!

I am guessing you are being facetious with that comment. I do not intend to kill the spellthief with the aforementioned tactics. For one, the party is far away from the vampires, they will not engage at all the party unless they have a solid reason to do so. So far they are simply assessing the battle from afar.

White_Drake

2012-12-11, 04:51 PM

I'm just going to point out that, unless the skeleton captains are secretly clerics, or all of the skeletons are sentient, killing the "captains" would do exactly squat to confuse/demoralize the skeletons.

AlanBruce

2012-12-11, 05:12 PM

Although the captains are not sentient per se, they have been imbued with a minor morale bonus that they confer to their squad. This is represented by a bonus to their ranged attacks. Destroying the captains would reduce the archer's bonus to ranged attacks significantly.

White_Drake

2012-12-11, 05:18 PM

So the captains are magic items?

demigodus

2012-12-11, 05:20 PM

Or bards with the feat that lets them use their bardic music on undead?

AlanBruce

2012-12-11, 05:44 PM

The captains aren't magical in that sense. The one who created them imbued that bonus to these bigger undead so the lesser undead could be more effective in battle. It's an extraordinary ability they possess, minor as it may be. After that, they are undead with the corpse crafter feat tree applied to them.

TuggyNE

2012-12-11, 06:01 PM

Or bards with the feat that lets them use their bardic music on undead?

If they had been, killing them wouldn't take effect for at least 5 rounds.

Archmage1

2012-12-11, 06:03 PM

well... it takes 2 rounds for me to kill one captain. spending 6 rounds to do less than the cleric does in one... seems ineffective

elvengunner69

2012-12-11, 06:35 PM

Hi - I played one of the skeletons and I think it was massively unfair that the players had a Cleric in their party.

*****obviously just joking******

This is interesting and fun to see the different perspectives on this issue. And AB I admire how you are not getting defensive but trying to explain rationally what you were doing/thinking.

Archmage1

2012-12-11, 06:36 PM

And to make it even more fun, I, the Spellthief, understand exactly where he is coming from as well.
It just does not seem to be reasonable for the spellthief to fight the skeletons, as the cleric is going to kill them all, and his assistance saves the cleric no time at all.
Plus he has a bounty to capture the Vampires, and has no idea what they are, or how powerful they are(no know religion)

Asheram

2012-12-11, 06:57 PM

One thing about being unfair. If the players are frightened; they are emotionally invested; they are having fun.

I actually measure my sessions in how much one of the players is panicking.

Archmage1

2012-12-11, 07:04 PM

I wouldn't really say that I am panicking. I was looking for a way for a 12th level character to boost his saves to the point that he can somewhat reliably make dc 29+ saves.
Did not even see this thread until later.

AlanBruce

2012-12-11, 07:05 PM

To say this battle has been a headache mechanically would be an understatement. I am fortunate to have very good players in the campaign who have put with days if posting rolls after rolls on both sides of the grid. Can the vampires be "rescued"? Yes, but it could be a daunting task seeing who they work for. Fortunately, the pcs have made very powerful allies so far, so, in the long run, it could be achieved. Also, no undead were hurt during the making of this film.

Archmage1

2012-12-11, 07:07 PM

Only because daggers go straight through them :)
and lights never hurt anyone.

Threadnaught

2012-12-11, 08:52 PM

well... it takes 2 rounds for me to kill one captain. spending 6 rounds to do less than the cleric does in one... seems ineffective

Alan, kill him, kill his character now. :smallsigh:

Did the player use a Save Point before the battle? Did they Load the Game so they could complete this level with a perfect score? I say, set the game on the Hardest Difficulty, only allow one Save File and force them to Overwrite it at the end of each Level.

Too videogamey? Well that's what happens when you let your players retry the screwups they cause through their own decisions. I wasn't even using the videogame stuff to snark about how you run your game, it's more a comment on how the decisions your players make, won't really matter if they can go back and change their minds.

Archmage, you made a bad decision which got you killed and that's sad, but isn't dying due to bad decision making just as much part of the game as dying to bad rolls? Or over acting every interaction with an NPC? Or killing helpless goblins because everyone knows they're evil?

Archmage1

2012-12-11, 09:11 PM

I don't mind dying to bad rolls, but when you roll 2 15's, you should not be failing saves if your saves are higher than your level.
Had I rolled a 7 and a 5, I would still be trying to boost my saves, but I already have all the save boost feats, a +5 cloak, and spellgrace, for a total of +10 to saves(above and beyond normal saves from attributes and class). For a level 12 character, that should mean that I make saves on at least a 10.

Why would a spellthief be killing skeletons when there are enemy casters in sight?

Who in their right mind would be expecting a transdimensional spell? Or pierce magical protection? I had never even heard of them being used until they both were. Yes, NPC's having odd feats can make sense, but, well, I could see PMP, (after the fact) but transdimensional spell?

demigodus

2012-12-11, 09:16 PM

wait... +10 from items/feats/class feature, +4 from class levels (assuming they are a bad save), + 15 rolled, for a total of 29 + ability mod?

I thought the save DCs were 29? Or were both your Con AND Wis mods negative?

Archmage1

2012-12-11, 09:18 PM

Alas, had 9 points of con damage, and negative wisdom mod. I was one point off from getting the will save, and was a long way away from the fort save needed.

Also, I may have exaggerated on the will roll. Total bonus was a 17, and I rolled an 11.

ShriekingDrake

2012-12-11, 09:21 PM

Not every encounter is going to enable each character/player to contribute equally--either by design or by happenstance. There is little question that the cleric is getting to shine in this encounter. And there is little question that the encounter is heavily oriented in a way that enables the cleric to do so. While you don't want too many of those types of unbalanced encounters in one game, I think it is fine for the DM to create epic memories for the players at different times in the game. I frequently find myself having to work especially hard to give rogues, monks, and lower tier characters their moments in the sun--and as the DM that's my job.

All that said, I can empathize with the frustration of having to sit through a long encounter with nothing but piddly stuff to do. No one wants to feel undervalued. Ideally, Alan will make it up Archmage1 in the next encounter or two (or based on some of the comments in this thread was already doing some making up to the rest of the party in this encounter as Archmate1 has had some very memorable moments earlier in the campaign).

Keld Denar

2012-12-11, 09:24 PM

I see a 12th level cleric and a PC dying from a [Fear] effect. No, you are NOT being to harsh. The fault here is pretty much on the PCs for not having adequate protection against common effects.

Lrn2HerosFeast!

ngilop

2012-12-11, 09:27 PM

the only thing in my point of view that is unfair was transdimensional spell, thats a little to uhmmm niche..?

I would call shenanigans on that being used against me if i was a ring of blinking guy.

I call bullcrap on ghosts and other such 'reasons' for the vampire to have that specific metamagic prepared and woudl wager salary they are really deep down jsut copouts.

run teh combat again but do not use cheddar liek stuff with transdimension spells.

Archmage1

2012-12-11, 09:35 PM

Tarith has done well in one fight that he actually won(with the group)
Soloed an enemy sorc, dealing ~350 damage before eating a dominate monster.
bluffed some mummies into attacking a city instead of the party.
Fought some more mummies, and was rescued by the cleric
Fought a blighter, and was saved by a readied action(would have been hit with a confirmed crit from a scythe)
Fought a doppleganger assassin(with help from the others)
Lost to the nymph assassin... 3 times(Dead once)
Lost to a tiefling of the sneak attack persuasion
flew around and ignored an evil treant, using benign transposition to rescue nymphs
Blinded in a fight against a plant(in the end, rescued by the cleric)
Bluffed some giants into giving 10 stones of water elemental summoning, before fighting them with the help of the entire party
Soloed an Astral Deva(Blind luck, mostly)
rescued by the cleric in the aftermath.(geas met absorb spell, and absorb won)
Has he done stuff? Sure
Has he drawn more attention than: I cast a spell? Sure
Has he been overshadowing the party in combat? I wouldn't say so.
(I might be biased, but with a god wizard, and a dmm cleric that is only just learning his power, he has done the majority of the damage)

As far as dying from a fear effect: Heroes feast: 6th level spell.
Visage of the deity: 6th level spell. Which one wins for a DMM persist cleric?(especially as there had been no fear until then)

Keld Denar

2012-12-11, 09:59 PM

You don't have to persist Hero's Feast. If anything, a simple medium Rod of Extend is 11k gold, not a bad investment for a 12th level character. And he should have at LEAST 3 6th level slots.

Really, not doing Hero's Feast at 12th level is selfish. And foolish.

Archmage1

2012-12-11, 10:03 PM

Yea... wis of 22, level 12 cleric, has one domain spell, and one normal spell memorized at 6th level.
He is missing a couple of normal spells for some reason.

Keld Denar

2012-12-11, 10:49 PM

Two normal spells, to be exact. He basically only has his 1 bonus spell (for 22 Wis) and his 1 domain spell. He should also have 2 normal slots.

dantiesilva

2012-12-12, 01:04 AM

I'm missing two spells hehehe......

The restart was my idea as the whole thing was done on a not so kept up map and after reviewing the rounds none of the actions would have happened. As such I have become keeper of the map.

Also vampires are no where near epic as a group could easily kill, with a Lucky shot he could potentially kill.

Archmage1

2012-12-12, 07:25 AM

Well, considering that my own blink made me miss 3 attacks last round...

Threadnaught

2012-12-12, 07:31 AM

The restart was my idea as the whole thing was done on a not so kept up map and after reviewing the rounds none of the actions would have happened. As such I have become keeper of the map.

Okay, I was under the impression that Archmage's complaints, which I believe to be on the whining side of the line, were the cause for the restart.

Even then, are you sure you need to redo the scenario? If everything is the same as before, but player actions, then it probably would be best for the DM to change his own tactics. Think about surprising them with how you use the Vampire Generals, they're playing differently this time, so it would be wise for you to do the same.

Archmage1

2012-12-12, 07:51 AM

I was willing to wait for the cleric to gain a level and sell my armor to finance a resurrection.(admittedly, for some depressing reasons: It does me no good in any event, but still)

Amphetryon

2012-12-12, 08:01 AM

Even then, are you sure you need to redo the scenario? If everything is the same as before, but player actions, then it probably would be best for the DM to change his own tactics. Think about surprising them with how you use the Vampire Generals, they're playing differently this time, so it would be wise for you to do the same.From my vantage point, that sounds like advising the DM to metagame (because the default assumption is the Players are going to metagame the scenario).

dantiesilva

2012-12-12, 08:22 AM

Hard to metagame when you are going up against 50archers launching a volley of arrows each round 1 hit killing most things unless they pass their save. Another reason though like before I was only targeting the skeletons. Sadly my last turn damage was so high it killed everything in the group. I am hoping on my next turn to get rid of another volley doubt it though. Will also be exposing myself to death. Lets hope they get really bad rolls. And yea it was not Archmage who asked for the redo he got to be a gray elf out of dieing. Their are more reasons then the ones stated here, but I can not mention them as it may cause a someone to get angry that is I'm pretty sure watching me like a hawk.

And actually we are all doing the same thing. Wizard is saving as many people as he can. Me and NPC cleric taking out as many undead as we can, though she just died so...And Spellthief...well he is going after the generals again to solo.....XD

Amphetryon

2012-12-12, 08:51 AM

Hard to metagame when you are going up against 50archers launching a volley of arrows each round 1 hit killing most things unless they pass their save.I would call the very notion that you believe this to be the encounter you're going to face - before facing it, and without evidence to indicate you got the information via scouting the enemy in-game - a metagame issue.

Doxkid

2012-12-12, 08:54 AM

Play dumb-> get Killed->Make new Character

He can't control the fact that he has a low int/wis score IRL, but that doesn't mean you have to pull punches when something is a bad idea. Seems like the kind of guy who bum-rushes a Balor at level 3 because "Our DM would NEVER put us this close to something we cant kill!"

dantiesilva

2012-12-12, 09:59 AM

But we are facing it, we are in round 3 of battle

White_Drake

2012-12-12, 10:41 AM

Play dumb-> get Killed->Make new Character

He might be able to help that he has a low int/wis score IRL

Huh?

Also, @ dantiesilva: But does your character know that he's in the middle of a battle? After all, under certain circumstances it would be entirely unreasonable for a character to know what he is currently doing. Perhaps he has pyro vision and thinks he is in a field of fluffy bunnies. :smalltongue:

AlanBruce

2012-12-12, 12:08 PM

The battle is, thankfully, over. No PCs were killed. Sadly, the NPC sent to be retrieved was, in fact, retrieved. All in all, a successful battle for the party since they did blast a bunch of undead.

Lapak

2012-12-12, 12:28 PM

The battle is, thankfully, over. No PCs were killed. Sadly, the NPC sent to be retrieved was, in fact, retrieved. All in all, a successful battle for the party since they did blast a bunch of undead.If you don't mind saying, but how was the NPC retrieved?

AlanBruce

2012-12-12, 12:35 PM

The npc cleric fell during a volley of arrows and was away from the party. The other npcs had hidden in their homes when the arrow volleys became too much for them to handle. The spellthief was far away dealing with the generals, while the magus and cleric where across town. Then, one of the captains moved towards the fallen npc and carried her. At that moment, the BBEG swallowed all troops back into the ground and made the Generals disappear in an ethereal cloud (the troops erupted from the ground in the first place). He then taunted the party's cleric, stating that he would be married "very soon" to the npc cleric (who is the party cleric's GF). Now the cleric is considering on going after this individual into his valley and prevent a wedding.

Morbis Meh

2012-12-12, 05:25 PM

He then taunted the party's cleric, stating that he would be married "very soon" to the npc cleric (who is the party cleric's GF). Now the cleric is considering on going after this individual into his valley and prevent a wedding.

...So your villain is the Neclord from Suikoden I? :smallbiggrin:

AlanBruce

2012-12-12, 05:48 PM

...So your villain is the Neclord from Suikoden I? :smallbiggrin:

Hehehe. I wish. He's just a lonely necromancer in a mountain. A mountain filled with the ravenous undead, but still lonely.

Deophaun

2012-12-12, 05:55 PM

Hehehe. I wish. He's just a lonely necromancer in a mountain. A mountain filled with the ravenous undead, but still lonely.

The mountain's name wouldn't be Skullcrusher (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ryNJVreiY) by any chance, would it?

Archmage1

2012-12-12, 05:58 PM

So, Alan... about that adamantine shovel Tarith managed to acquire...
1d20+53 bluff

AlanBruce

2012-12-12, 07:17 PM

The mountain's name wouldn't be Skullcrusher (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ryNJVreiY) by any chance, would it?

I must say... that is very, very accurate to what is happening in the campaign right now.

Foreboding mountain of death? check

Monstruous minions at his beck and call? check

Pretty damsel taken by force? check

Insane caster? check

Archmage1

2012-12-12, 07:19 PM

The Good Priest? Check
The absent minded Mage? Check
The cunning scoundrel? Check

Bundin

2012-12-12, 09:31 PM

While reading this topic, there was one very simple question that kept tugging at me: why on earth did the generals, and even more so the bloke that employed them, bother with all this (excusez le mot) nonsense? This is a meta-question of course.

For the Generals: they're there to grab an npc that's protected by a bunch of amateurs. The power difference is vast enough to classify the PCs as an irritant at most when taking into account the resources they have at their disposal next to the level difference: whatever it takes to organise 250 skellies and their captain-overseers onto a battlefield. It doesn't make sense to want to observe the PCs, just like it doesn't make sense for me to monitor a wasp before swatting it. The wasp may sting/inconvenience me if I don't take some care, but if I want it dead, it is most definitely gone. I can always call the fumigator (12 captains, 250 skellies, 4 greater wraiths, the 2 generals, and the two reserve ones if you want to be really thorough, all together on a gather-up-and-snatch mission kinda qualify as exactly that: fumigators). Even if they didn't know the PCs were that much weaker, a horde of skellies with conveniently spread out captains wouldn't teach you much. As soon as one of the PCs or allies would fall (to a simple arrow) swooping in and mopping up would be the only logical thing to do. Girl grabbed, pests swatted, boss happy!

Chances are that my character would have realised exactly that as well, even without meta creeping in. Things would be different if not all pieces were in town that day, but by having the generals present and described as very very powerful, you'd have taken out my character's incentive to try and survive. He'd know that his survival was a decision by the bad guys no matter how hard he would try because the logical thing to do would be killing them all and grabbing the girl. So I'd have done exactly the same as the seriously nerfed spellthief: poke the baddies that actually matter or (make that "and") die trying. Death seems unavoidable in the future anyway, considering the opposition, may as well go out in a blaze of glory. That, or hand over the NPC and leave, if my alignment swinged that way of course.

Yes, the above probably kills the narrative, and I am completely devoid of any knowledge about your campaign and its goals, so I'm probably trampling over a very carefully built story in which this does make sense.

p.s.: done editing now, I apologise for my constantly reworded post in the past hour, guess I'm more tired than I thought..

AlanBruce

2012-12-12, 10:26 PM

Thank you for that observation. The party's cleric is quite optimized and the generals were sent to first assess how well he could handle troops of skeletons. It also turns out that the general's uncle- a cleric himself, once fought this army alone and managed to burn many of them. So naturally, the boss wanted to see if this cleric + npc cleric + magus + spellthief were to be taken lightly or not- ergo, sending in the mooks first to see what they could do and, hopefully, exhaust their resources. Thankfully, that was not necessary because the girl was taken when the PCs were split around town fighting off the undead.

Spuddles

2012-12-12, 11:54 PM

Even so, you made a poor choice. You chose to attack something that your character should have known was too powerful for him to handle on your own.

I agree. His character should have known. But it sounds like his character didn't know. So he didn't really do anything wrong, did he.

Spuddles

2012-12-13, 12:08 AM

Alan, kill him, kill his character now. :smallsigh:

Did the player use a Save Point before the battle? Did they Load the Game so they could complete this level with a perfect score? I say, set the game on the Hardest Difficulty, only allow one Save File and force them to Overwrite it at the end of each Level.

Too videogamey? Well that's what happens when you let your players retry the screwups they cause through their own decisions. I wasn't even using the videogame stuff to snark about how you run your game, it's more a comment on how the decisions your players make, won't really matter if they can go back and change their minds.

Archmage, you made a bad decision which got you killed and that's sad, but isn't dying due to bad decision making just as much part of the game as dying to bad rolls? Or over acting every interaction with an NPC? Or killing helpless goblins because everyone knows they're evil?

Play dumb-> get Killed->Make new Character

He can't control the fact that he has a low int/wis score IRL, but that doesn't mean you have to pull punches when something is a bad idea. Seems like the kind of guy who bum-rushes a Balor at level 3 because "Our DM would NEVER put us this close to something we cant kill!"

You two are being extremely rude.

I'm impressed by how well OP and Archmage have handled this, given the amount of criticism that borders on personal attacks. Much better than I would!

Hyde

2012-12-13, 12:55 AM

Man that is exactly his player. Weird.

You're both a little wrong. It's one thing to to kill him when he goes rogue and attempts to bushwhack enemy leaders in full view of their entire everything. This is stupid behavior that gets you killed. It is, however, another thing to overkill him with a build that looks like it's designed to counter his exact character. The vamps are probably tough enough to begin with that a single character with a death wish is not enough cause to go full-throttle on.

Short answer: Yes, you're being too unfair, because "at all" is "too".

Archmage1

2012-12-13, 07:11 AM

As an added bonus, I went in with plenty of buffs
fly, haste, freedom of movement, recitation, aid, GMW, keen edge, alter self(+6 na), shield,

Threadnaught

2012-12-13, 09:13 AM

From my vantage point, that sounds like advising the DM to metagame (because the default assumption is the Players are going to metagame the scenario).

The player who failed his previous run, is using knowledge of his failure (which his character has not experienced) to do things differently in the rerun. That's not metagaming?

You two are being extremely rude.

I'm impressed by how well OP and Archmage have handled this, given the amount of criticism that borders on personal attacks. Much better than I would!

You know what I like about videogames? When I screw up, I can go back, do things differently and be an invincible badass. You know the easiest way to make a decision in a videogame? Save, then reload if things don't work out the way you want them to.
That's the kind of thing I directed at AlanBruce (the OP), now I don't know if you noticed from my post, but I obviously don't take my decisions in videogames very seriously when I can always pick the one with the least negative consequences toward my character and the world around me.

The comment directed at Archmage, the last part of my post. It seemed to me that he mostly agrees with me. Judging by this post.

I was willing to wait for the cleric to gain a level and sell my armor to finance a resurrection.(admittedly, for some depressing reasons: It does me no good in any event, but still)

This is why I feel it would have been best for Archmage to stay dead while his buddies ponied up the cash for a Raise Dead or Resurrection spell, with some easy way to earn loads of loot and possibly exp to compensate for everything. The characters themselves have little motivation or knowledge about the vampires to actually go after them, they don't even know about PMP or Transdimensional Spell. At least with the Spellthief dead, they'd be able to get a heads up in the future. Unless they remember everything from the aborted timeline, which is metagaming.

Amphetryon

2012-12-13, 12:11 PM

The player who failed his previous run, is using knowledge of his failure (which his character has not experienced) to do things differently in the rerun. That's not metagaming?When did I say it wasn't? I said (rephrased) that the advice given appeared to me to read "The DM should metagame, because the Players will." Or, are you of the opinion that your quoted scenario isn't metagaming?

Karoht

2012-12-13, 01:20 PM

@OP
My two cents.

You gave the player two potential outlets to be useful/effective.
One was a longshot gamble due to the unknown factors of the vampire and such. As a player there were very few ways to know what to expect, but ultimately the warning signs were 'this guy is a vampire' which is on it's own is normally pretty hefty level adjustment template, in addition to whatever the vampire was already rocking.

The other was a more certain and measured approach, engaging the skeletal army. The player would have been useful and effective.

However...
Typical wisdom in such a situation is usually for the NPC's to fight the army of mooks while the PC's engage the tougher enemies. One could make the case that this was an example of the encounter being slighly counter-intuitive in this respect. I can completely understand why the player might feel a bit miffed here. Conventional approach would be to take on the big bad, that is exactly what happened, and the player hit a brick wall (in his estimation). He felt it was inappropriate given the circumstances.

That said, cudos on what sounds like an excellent encounter.

dantiesilva

2012-12-13, 01:30 PM

Our job was to protect the town and the NPCs so going after enemies 500ft away and 200ft in the air is not really what you would do in that situation.

16th level cleric
4 X level barbarians
3 4th level fighters
1 rouge

vs
250 archers
15Capitans

Archers using arrow volley rules. Where is the wisdom in attacking the enemy that has thus far gone nowhere near you or attacked you? To go after them you are giving up on your mission and leaving them all to die.

This was our map
http://pyromancers.com/media/view/main.swf?round_id=19314

As you can see their are no generals on the map. That because thats how far away they were. And the odd looking things that are just their with nothing over them is where troops started.

Origomar

2012-12-13, 02:05 PM

This is just my opinion but this is what i read:

A player didnt do what i told him to do after giving him ample warning, and his character died to a homebrewed creation that might not have killed him otherwise. He should have stayed and attacked the things i wanted him to attack(the things that are difficult and tedious for him to kill).

AlanBruce

2012-12-13, 02:42 PM

Karoht

2012-12-13, 03:30 PM

Threadnaught

2012-12-13, 07:24 PM

I told the player OOC that they were strong, yes. Later, IC, through application of spellcraft, knowledge checks and true seeing, it would be revealed they were vampires with several spells on them and guarded by strong undead (dread wraiths), information relayed to the party telepathically by the magus.

I did not expect the spellthief to fly towards them, considering all information provided, however I believe this topic has been discussed ad nauseum. I do thank you for your opinion, however. And know that the encounter ended favorably for the PCs, furthering the campaign and even gaining them a level.

Me to my players mostly in character.

Don't go into the forest of the dead, to find the city of the dead where the god of Death, umm... Lives? Err, unlives... He's a Demilich, whatever, you've seen him before and he commands an army of undead. Anyway, don't go there, to fight his living weapon, created to surpass the god of Destruction whom you can't even visibly damage. It's too dangerous, plus you're both only level 7.

You guys seriously forgot what happened the last time you went there without the god of Death protecting you? You were almost wiped out by Wights, this Goblin Druid, whose companions you had murdered before saved you by order of the god of Magic and because the DM didn't want you to die to some easy enemies he gave you to just slaughter.

They went anyway and the world ended in a four way free for all between the god of Destruction, the the god of Death, his living weapon and an NPC Monk who had travelled with the players.

What can you do? When the players want to do something, they really put their hearts into it. :smallamused:

AlanBruce

2012-12-13, 08:42 PM

I must concur. It may be because I have not been a player for a very long time that I have neglected to see that aspect of player initiative. As of now, the party's cleric has asked an astral deva to enter the valley with them and rescue the npc. I would hope that it is in the player's heart to rescue her and leave (ideally looting and leveling up in the process), however it would seem he is quite intent on bringing down the entire place.

Archmage1

2012-12-13, 08:47 PM

Well, the cleric might not care about the looting bit. And I don't think he has the spells needed memorized.

the spellthief needs to find himself some stakes for vampire imprisonment.
And he is always interested in looting, and leveling. 2 more levels needed for awesomeness.

dantiesilva

2012-12-13, 09:47 PM

I am going for more then leveling the place. I am going to level it build a dam fill it with water and make sure no one ever goes their by putting man eating fish inside and a wall of force covering the whole entire place and an imprisonment spell on the dam guy. Stole my girl friend. Creates undead, steals peoples loved ones....yea The cleric of the burning hate wants him gone 7 ways. And come to think of it put him in a box covered in lead for good measure that is in an antimagic field at the bottom of the lake buried under the ruins I left after beating him.

Archmage1

2012-12-13, 09:51 PM

Luckily, you have a spellthief along to relieve you of any critical plot centric artifacts...

dantiesilva

2012-12-13, 10:35 PM

Ohh there are artifacts here...ok we find all magic items first, destroy all evil ones then do my plan

AlanBruce

2012-12-14, 12:34 AM

My players, ladies and gentlemen. One who could bluff a god if he wished to while pocketing every item in their possession, and another who becomes a radiant hulk of a man capable of devastating entire armies alone.

I wish the magus were here.

dantiesilva

2012-12-14, 01:10 AM

The only logical one out of all of us. And he has come out of his shell thankfully with them freezing fog spells. Love it. You stop that part of the army. Why Because I need to crush everything else and don't want to deal with annoying arrows do you know how many I had to pull out of my armor last time XD.

Socratov

2012-12-14, 02:14 AM

soudns like a fun gaming group :smallbiggrin:

(and those tropes are waaaaayyyy overused, but oh so much fun :smallcool:)

AlanBruce

2012-12-14, 04:54 AM

soudns like a fun gaming group :smallbiggrin:

(and those tropes are waaaaayyyy overused, but oh so much fun :smallcool:)

The general assessing the devastation from afar, I would presume? Yes, it is a tired and true trope, but given who they are dealing with ( a child with delusions of power), it seemed appropriate to send them in. Oddly enough, the villains in the campaign don't show up that way. They tend to be a tad more sneaky.

This was, if I'm not mistaken, the first "big battle" for the PCs.. never again, though. They can be quite a headache roll-wise.

Threadnaught

2012-12-14, 08:32 AM

I must concur. It may be because I have not been a player for a very long time that I have neglected to see that aspect of player initiative.

I, having only been a played for a single session beforehand, abused this aspect of my players in the third session. I had left a Tarrasque with it's nasal passages stuffed with what it was surrounded by when it was defeated. Of course an NPC the players had robbed in the second session had asked them to go to the cave and bring back the item that blocked it's nostrils (which were also in a large pile behind it) the Ranger unblocked it's nose allowing the god of Destruction to wake up. So if you can manipulate your players, you can get them to do things you want them to.
It's all about expectations, you mentioned tropes in one of your comments, well do some research there, they're expecting the tropes, they won't be expecting you to turn them inside out. Even when two of them read this, the fact that you get to pick and choose which tropes you play straight, and which ones you get to modify, makes it impossible for them to know what's happening by being genre savvy alone.

My players, ladies and gentlemen. One who could bluff a god if he wished to while pocketing every item in their possession, and another who becomes a radiant hulk of a man capable of devastating entire armies alone.

I wish the magus were here.

These guys are insane. You have a good group that I think I'd enjoy being a part of. Maybe as a Monk, just to annoy the Spellthief when he sees me do better than him. :smallamused:

dantiesilva

2012-12-14, 09:36 AM

Well we are looking for a tank like player.....if alan and archmage are willing I have no problem letting you join. A warning though we go through a page a day roughly in posts. We are fast paced and mostly active latter on in the day. We keep recruiting and people keep leaving. We have gone through like 4 players so far for different reasons. One of them happened to be a monk/Drunken master and was quite devastating in battle.

Threadnaught

2012-12-14, 03:48 PM

Depends what part of the world you guys are in really.

I would enjoy fitting into a group, because the other members are just as nuts as I am, but high activity later in the day could mean early morning for the fifth player. I mean early as in 1am to 6am.

You guys do need a VoP Monk to compete against Archmage in terms of pure asskicking. Something that is notoriously low tier, but when optimized a little and well played, can put his Spell Thief to shame. :smallamused:
Maybe that "Ultimate Monk" build with the Spiked Chain. That would've wiped out loads of skeletons in a single hit. How dare something from a lower tier, totally kick ass and make the vampires crap themselves. :smallbiggrin:
Go ahead, bring in Emperor Tippy to counter it, I dare you.

AlanBruce
My players a 5th level Wizard and a 5th level Druid are stuck on a CL10 Lich, who before the fight had Blink and Protection from Energy (Fire) cast, and blew through all his Enervations on some NPC prisoners. With help from an NPC, they got it's HP down from 49 to 11 and it can resist a further 81 points of Fire damage. They like using Fire, Cold and Electricity Spells. Druid did manage to get some healing done on the Lich though. :smallamused:
Wizard is out of comission, he rolled a 2 on his Will Save to Hideous Laughter and has 7 rounds to go. The NPC is out of useful Spells, he's a 9th level character Wizard 5, Bearer of the Ancestral Weapon 4. His Greatsword is almost useless against the Lich.
Druid's Animal Companion is a Hawk, which he can speak to thanks to a Wish for a Wondrous Item with Speak with Animals as a permanent effect. Funniest part about this fight?

They met this same Lich once before and demolished him, it's only thanks to the Wizard not finishing it off, that it got away with it's Phylactery. Now it comes into the fight with 20% Miss Chance and a 120 point buffer against Fire Damage and almost killing them. :smallamused:

Seriously, the Lich is now so confident it can win, it's punching the Druid. If it could be holding a glass of brandy right now, it would be perfect. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: They're stuck because I haven't been able to get their character sheets with the computer I usually use failing. Hopefully I'll be able to make tomorrow's session.

dantiesilva

2012-12-14, 03:59 PM

Well the books allowed are
PHB
PHB2
DMG
Complete Arcane
Complete Adventure
Complete Warrior
Complete Divine
Spell Con

And every now and then alan is generous enough to allow a small piece of another book. I do not see VoP being allowed XD. It can become broken in the right hands. Druid VoP = Game over bad guys quit

AlanBruce

2012-12-14, 04:17 PM

@Threadnaught: You are more than welcome to browse through the IC and OOC if you're interested. The party could use another player.

IC Chapter 3 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261700)

And here's the OOC (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=262945)

I wish I had the other IC's for chapter I and II. The read is quite lengthy, but Chapter 3 should give you enough insight as to the general scope of things.

Archmage1

2012-12-14, 06:02 PM

Turning a complaint thread into a recruiting thing. Sneaky.
Still, a fourth player would make the suicidal fights marginally less suicidal.

But yea, the RP for this game has been a lot of fun. The combat, not as much, as winning against the major NPC's is impossible, but then, that does make for a better story.

barna10

2012-12-14, 06:36 PM

Sorry, I vote for the DM on this one. It's his job to challenge the players, not make things easy.

I had a similar situation a few years back. I made it perfectly clear that this Helldrake (CR 40) lived on a plateau in the center of the gaming world. The PCs were sent to said plateau to find something. For nearly 2 hours the Helldrake flew overhead shrieking and scaring everyone (never attacking, casting spells, or even breathing in the PCs direction). Oh, did I mention the PCs were 6th level?

So, the missiion was to be stealthy, retrieve the item, and get out. They refused to take cover or attempt to be sneaky, so the dragon kept getting closer, and closer, until he was finally circling overhead.

The PCs response, "Prepare for battle!" I asked, "What? Why?" The unanimous response, "He attacked us first, we are defending ourselves." My jaw dropped. I still have no clue what "attack" I missed, but I rolled with it.

The dragon landed and immediately started separating the group with Walls of Fire. Again, the players knew the power of the Dragon. The first player had his PC jump through the wall to join his comrades, and promptly died.

Second player, who's PC was in an area with the big baddy who had changed to human form, charges and attempts to trip. I didn't even role for the bad guy, he just laughed and fell to the ground.

Mind you, he still hasn't attacked anyone! The only PC to take damage effectively killed himself! So, while laying on the ground and ignoring the attacks of the super-tripper, he changes back into dragon form. The player proceeds to argue with me that he should 1) get an AOO for his shapechange, and 2) that he can still trip a Gargantuan dragon. Ignoring the idiocy, I continued.

The helldrake proceeded to casts holds on all 5 of the remaining PCs. I was going to have him place a Geas on them so we could get on with the game. He proceeded to resurrect the guy that had jumped through the fire, and he refused to be brought back.

The players quit the campaign. Why? They claimed I was being unfair. I should have never taken them up against something they had no chance of defeating was the main complaint. I laughed. I told them I had given ample and plentiful warning that they were being idiots, he NEVER attacked, and even tried to resurrect the idiot that jumped through the wall of fire, and somehow I'm the "idiot that has f***ing clue how to play D&D".

So, yes. Sometimes DMs are idiots, and so are the players. However, when ample warning is given and you choose to ignore it, that's you're fault. You might as well blame the cops when you get arrested while robbing a bank.

And in this case, the Spellthief's player was being either a very bad or a very naive player. Either way, the mistakes were his and he should gracefully learn from them and move on.

Remember, if you don't like how someone DMs, offer to run the next game. STOP ARGUING! Your just ruining the game for everyone by being a sore loser. Your PC is just a piece of paper and the game is supposed to be fun. Mistakes are made, on both sides of the DM shield. Move on.

Lastly, NEVER assume you have a reasonable chance to kill everything your PCs meet.

Archmage1

2012-12-14, 07:03 PM

Well, I had the option of doing nothing, or at least trying to do something. I went with trying.
Ultimately, losing a level would not be the end of the world, as -1 to skills is not a lot to lose.
At the time I was a bit more upset though.

demigodus

2012-12-14, 07:14 PM

Remember, if you don't like how someone DMs, offer to run the next game. STOP ARGUING! Your just ruining the game for everyone by being a sore loser.

Pet peeve of mine, but I hate when people yell this at the person who is not arguing.

Your PC is just a piece of paper and the game is supposed to be fun. Mistakes are made, on both sides of the DM shield. Move on.

If the game is supposed to be fun, and something makes the game not fun, making sure the DM understands WHY that is not fun is perfectly logical. Yelling "you are supposed to have fun" in response to them not having fun... doesn't make much sense.

Lastly, NEVER assume you have a reasonable chance to kill everything your PCs meet.

In some games. Honestly, everyone has an idea of how the game is supposed to be played. Trouble starts when the DM and the players start with very different assumptions. If you are going to be DM'ing, NEVER assume your players are playing with the same assumptions that you are. Explain assumptions like this to them. The players can ask, but DMs often just look confused or don't give straight answers when asked about their setting, because they think it is common sense, or obvious or such. It is your world, you know what it is like. Your players don't. Don't forget that they do not.

Also, if your player had Improved Trip, the creature would only be getting a +12 bonus over them (on top of size differences). The player DOES have a chance of succeeding, depending on the relevant strength mods. If your players want you to roll, don't laugh at them. Actually roll. DnD is about a bunch of heroes who do completely ridiculous stuff. Don't ignore the roll just because it is ridiculous. If it is physically impossible for them, they will fail anyways, but at least roll.

barna10

2012-12-14, 07:27 PM

Also, if your player had Improved Trip, the creature would only be getting a +12 bonus over them (on top of size differences). The player DOES have a chance of succeeding, depending on the relevant strength mods. If your players want you to roll, don't laugh at them. Actually roll. DnD is about a bunch of heroes who do completely ridiculous stuff. Don't ignore the roll just because it is ridiculous. If it is physically impossible for them, they will fail anyways, but at least roll.

Lol, now I laugh at you. Yes, the rules you quote are correct, but the tripping happened while he was in human form. Besides, he laughed because he voluntarily fell to the ground. He was immune to the PCs attacks.

I can't vouch for this case, but in my case, the players were all warned that godlike beings walked the same land as the PCs. Sorry, but there's no amount of DM skill that can make-up for player stupidity.

If the game is supposed to be fun, and something makes the game not fun, making sure the DM understands WHY that is not fun is perfectly logical. Yelling "you are supposed to have fun" in response to them not having fun... doesn't make much sense.

There's telling the DM that you didn't like something and then there's whining and ruing the game for everyone. The two are not one and the same. IMO, the player went well past the line and whined.

demigodus

2012-12-14, 07:33 PM

Lol, now I laugh at you. Yes, the rules you quote are correct, but the tripping happened while he was in human form. Besides, he laughed because he voluntarily fell to the ground. He was immune to the PCs attacks.

Sorry, I actually misread. I missed the part when he fell. So I guess you are justified in laughing at me here. :smallfurious:

I can't vouch for this case, but in my case, the players were all warned that godlike beings walked the same land as the PCs. Sorry, but there's no amount of DM skill that can make-up for player stupidity.

Have you ever tried arguing with various people how powerful gods are supposed to be? There isn't anything resembling a consensus on this one. One commonly cited one is that 10th level PCs should be at the demigod level (which, I personally qualify as "godlike"). You probably should have added something along the lines of "and they are way outside of your power level" to that.

My issue is not with your DM skill. My issue is your communication is based on assumptions that, while may seem perfectly logical/reasonable/common sense to you, others do not necessarily share. The only way to fix that is to realize that these qualitative phrases might mean something COMPLETELY different to your players then they mean to you.

There's telling the DM that you didn't like something and then there's whining and ruing the game for everyone. The two are not one and the same. IMO, the player went well past the line and whined.

You are aware that this thread was started by the DM right?

Archmage1

2012-12-14, 07:43 PM

Amphetryon

2012-12-14, 07:44 PM

You are aware that this thread was started by the DM right?Threads on the campaign from the Players are not hard to find.

barna10

2012-12-14, 07:47 PM

My issue is not with your DM skill. My issue is your communication is based on assumptions that, while may seem perfectly logical/reasonable/common sense to you, others do not necessarily share. The only way to fix that is to realize that these qualitative phrases might mean something COMPLETELY different to your players then they mean to you.

You are aware that this thread was started by the DM right?

First, yes, I know the DM started it and I am on his side.

Second, the players knew that the bad guy was 1) a Hellfire Wyrm, and 2) at least an 18th level Wizard (sorry, he was actually CR 46, 20th lvl wizard). Even if I hadn't actually told them his CR (which I did), the fact that he was a Hellfire Wyrm should have been the fist clue he was a bit more powerful than them.

Tell me how in the world that could have misinterpreted? It's been 8 years and I am still at a loss.

Archmage1

2012-12-14, 07:49 PM

I have tried to be Neutral. As far as I remember, there have been 4. Dantie has done 2, and I have done 2. I looked for solutions, Dantie... not so much. However, we are still in the game, which says a lot about Alan's skill as a DM. A world where the players stand not even a slight chance against significant NPC's, and yet we play on.

Keep it up, Alan.
While the NPC's are overwhelming, the story is worth it.

barna10

2012-12-14, 07:50 PM

I created a thread to ask for ways beyond what I already had to boost my saves. I don't think that qualifies as whining. I then answered questions about the situation, as neutrally as I could. All in all, I would say that Alan has been a great DM. My only significant complaint is the power of the NPC's, which I think leads them to making illogical decisions(such as not wiping out a certain problem causing party), and makes Alan saying that we are not going to be able to beat them a bit suspect, as the character IC has a current goal of capturing them.

Imagine Sauron or any of the Ring Wraiths in LOTR. Could Bilbo run up to any of them and take them on? no.

Having powerful NPCs is not a misstep by the DM. Assuming your DM is exaggerating when he says the extremely powerful NPC IS really powerful is the mistake.

demigodus

2012-12-14, 07:50 PM

Second, the players knew that the bad guy was 1) a Hellfire Wyrm, and 2) at least an 18th level Wizard (sorry, he was actually CR 46, 20th lvl wizard). Even if I hadn't actually told them his CR (which I did), the fact that he was a Hellfire Wyrm should have been the fist clue he was a bit more powerful than them.

Tell me how in the world that could have misinterpreted? It's been 8 years and I am still at a loss.

wasn't aware you had told them that.

Archmage1

2012-12-14, 07:52 PM

Well, there is an IC reason to fight the Vampires. And capture them, which makes life interesting.
And all of his NPC's have been powerful, but sort of fightable(well, actually, so far no enemies have really been fightable)

Also, these were not the ring wraiths. Those would be the ~40 ecl characters. These were more like the orc commanders.

Deophaun

2012-12-14, 08:15 PM

barna, I think your example was fine. You not only gave the players a heads-up, but you also gave them a good introduction to what you mean by "godlike" without making their first experience with it a TPK. More importantly, the creature served some kind of purpose in the adventure. That's where I have a disconnect with the encounter: the four (Zorn: "Not one or two or three but FOUR STONES!") generals really didn't serve a purpose except as an opportunity for some player to go get himself killed. That's it. Sum total of my disapproval of the encounter (although the initial "just kill a few CR1 skeletons/round" idea was also pretty bad). It's like putting an armed bear trap on a playground, and then telling a bunch of 10-year-olds not to play with it. There's no reason for it to be there, and bad things will happen. If the generals were that interested, they could have scryed the battle. Once you start assigning four high-level characters to watch over and direct a piddly unit of undead, you lose all right to talk about the rational actions of your NPCs, as that's just not rational.

Also, these were not the ring wraiths. Those would be the ~40 ecl characters. These were more like the orc commanders.
In case you missed it, I'll repeat: get a wand of wings of cover. At this stage, your only real defense against rolling a save is not having to roll a save.

Archmage1

2012-12-14, 08:20 PM

but... but then I can't try and absorb it!

barna10

2012-12-14, 08:28 PM

barna, I think your example was fine. You not only gave the players a heads-up, but you also gave them a good introduction to what you mean by "godlike" without making their first experience with it a TPK. More importantly, the creature served some kind of purpose in the adventure. That's where I have a disconnect with the encounter: the four (Zorn: "Not one or two or three but FOUR STONES!") generals really didn't serve a purpose except as an opportunity for some player to go get himself killed. That's it. Sum total of my disapproval of the encounter (although the initial "just kill a few CR1 skeletons/round" idea was also pretty bad). It's like putting an armed bear trap on a playground, and then telling a bunch of 10-year-olds not to play with it. There's no reason for it to be there, and bad things will happen. If the generals were that interested, they could have scryed the battle. Once you start assigning four high-level characters to watch over and direct a piddly unit of undead, you lose all right to talk about the rational actions of your NPCs, as that's just not rational.

In case you missed it, I'll repeat: get a wand of wings of cover. At this stage, your only real defense against rolling a save is not having to roll a save.

I never commented on the quality of the scenario...

Deophaun

2012-12-14, 08:31 PM

I never commented on the quality of the scenario...
"I side with the DM" with no qualifiers is comment enough on a thread the DM started to get feedback for his encounter. :P

barna10

2012-12-14, 08:50 PM

"I side with the DM" with no qualifiers is comment enough on a thread the DM started to get feedback for his encounter. :P

Err..no. Saying I think he did nothing wrong is not also saying he did everything the best he could have. The original question was whether he was being unfair, and the answer is still no.

He was not asking for feedback about the quality of his adventure. If the question was "am I being a douche by writing a story that makes no sense and creating encounters that my badass NPCs would probably never willingly be caught undead in?", I would have answered yes. I try to answer the question asked.

dantiesilva

2012-12-14, 09:39 PM

Actually as the creator of some of our enemies , I can say that half of them are on level with us, 25% are weaker then us. And the other 25% are stronger, but they are well known stronger then us. Alan only has a problem when we actually kill the npc he thought we couldn't because it means making a new one. As archmage said through 150 pages of play /i would not ask for another DM, that alan has done an amazing job and has brought the world to life for all of us. Going as far as using our back stories to shape the world and allowing us to literally do whatever we want. There has never once been a you are not allowed there situation. In the second chapter he let the spellthief do his own little side adventure of stealing from the duke. Was it a wise idea, no but did he allow it yes. He does not railroad us in his world we are the train conductor and say where we are heading. Alan keep up the amazing work.

barna10

2012-12-14, 10:16 PM

Archmage1

2012-12-14, 10:18 PM

Well, speaking as a player who has not designed characters for the DM in this game, I would say that the 25% stronger seems to be all the enemies. The 50% at the same level are some NPC's(leader of a wiz school, church peoples, that sort of thing, possibly some minor enemies as well), and the 25% weaker seem to be the npc's that were helping us in the battle(as arrow sponges)

dantiesilva

2012-12-14, 11:00 PM

Believe it or not the vampires are level 9. A lot weaker then us. Just well made if I say so myself. Alans item and finsih work, and my rough builds = masterful villains.

Archmage1

2012-12-14, 11:03 PM

Level 9 with a +2 to the dc of illusions, leaves her with a cha of 29-2(gsf)-10(base)-4(spell)=13, which means a cha of 36.
Yea.

dantiesilva

2012-12-14, 11:07 PM

You know I have a wizard no where close to optimized with a DC of 22 for 0 level spells right....And his Intelligence is only 25 without items....Its called taking good rolls and using them to your advantage. 18+4(the intelligence spell) +3 (levels) Not hard to get a high score....Hard to keep it for a long time, but not hard to have it high.

edit odd I just looked at the sheet and though they do not have that high of a base that DC does seem off by a bit. Perhaps alan raised the level. Then again mine do not have items included.

Archmage1

2012-12-14, 11:12 PM

um... 18+2(level 9)+4(vamp)+6(item)=30, or +10. Race is human, so no help there. further requires extensive template, or paragon levels. 36 is much harder.
hat and spell do not stack.

demigodus

2012-12-14, 11:12 PM

Out of curiosity, where is the +5 to your save DCs coming from? Int 25 would only give you save DCs of 17.

For example, accounting for that +5 would reduce the needed Cha score to 30 or so, instead of 36.

18 (base) + 2 (level) + 4 (template) + 6 (item) would easily get them there.

So yes, might be doable with lvl 9 vampires. However, I'm curious how you raise your save DCs that high.

dantiesilva

2012-12-14, 11:13 PM

Yes I am aware of that...hmm I will have to bring that up with Alan and ask him where he is getting his DCs so high. Because I am seeing 20s yes but 29 no.

Well I made a level 12 wizard. Specialize him. Then practiced spellcaster, shadow weave magic to add another boost, a trait that gives -1 to all other spell schools besides one specialized in which gets +1. Tattoo focus, and a few other things. The practiced spellcaster is in their for the 1 caster level he lost and the -3 he gets from specializing so much making him break out even. I think his highest DC is 29. Not to impressive to the playground I am sure, but to me someone who does not play them I was shocked. Even a blaster becomes good at those DCs

Archmage1

2012-12-14, 11:41 PM

If you really want to break things, go with CHA.
For no LA
18 base, +2 race, +2 magic blooded, +2 unseelie fey.
24 as a naked level 1 character. Now, boost that to level 8, getting +2 level, +4 item=30, with no LA.

And you have feats too.

dantiesilva

2012-12-14, 11:51 PM

See what I mean..XD told you it could be made more powerful.

Archmage1

2012-12-14, 11:53 PM

True, but that is stacking 2 of the most brokenly powerful templates on a character, and then adding to it. if you added vamp, and vamp lord, you get to a 38, but you are in the lands of cheese with that one.

dantiesilva

2012-12-15, 12:04 AM

Don't forget evolved undead

Archmage1

2012-12-15, 12:06 AM

Still, we are off topic.

From the players: The game is entertaining.
I don't think I need to say any more than that.
@Alan: if you really want to kill Tarith, please do it on friday, or the weekend. That gives me time to make a new one(probably a beguiler)

AlanBruce

2012-12-15, 12:35 AM

Why would I kill Tarith? True, he has shown a lot of bravado and clashed head on alone with some strong NPCs, but there is no reason for him to die. Especially given where you are going.

Jyton

2012-12-15, 06:06 AM

I seem to remember reading a comic somewhere in which this fighter-type guy jumped onto the back of a reanimated dragon to attack some Lich he had no hope of beating, taking a Meteor Swarm to the face, and falling to his death as a result :smalltongue:. (I registered to be able to post that, I hope you appreciate it!)

On a more serious note, to address your initial question, no, you weren't unfair in your initial play-through of this situation. Archmage made a tactically suicidal decision. The fact that it resulted in his death, regardless of the manner of his death, is not unreasonable. It has been pointed out already that allowing the situation he reacted to to exist in the first place was probably poor planning on your part, but trying to solo two bamf generals + guards = no bueno.

Archmage; the assertion that you couldn't meaningfully have impacted the battle is patently ridiculous. It's clear that the party had plenty of time to prepare, that you sought out this battle. Pick up some splash weapons. Magical/Alchemical splash weapons not readily available? Alright, find a bar, buy all their liquor, make some Molotov Cocktails and light the undead on fire. Five attacks per round, affecting nine squares each, at a touch AC of 5 + the range increment (targeting the square) would allow you to take out, at best, 45 skelies a round if the geometry worked in your favor, but at least 20 or so.

That's just my 2c. Hope I didn't offend you. One of the things I've been very successful with over the years as a GM has been teaching my players that they don't need to be limited by what their character sheets say. No, your rogue can't spontaneously cast sorcerer spells, (without multiclassing) but just because he has a dagger doesn't mean he needs to use it.

Threadnaught

2012-12-15, 06:25 AM

Lastly, NEVER assume you have a reasonable chance to kill everything your PCs meet.

I strongly disagree with this. You have a reasonable chance to kill anything in this game, starting from level 1.
The wording I would've used is in fact closer to NEVER assume you can or should KILL everything the DM uses to challenge you.

Assume any NPC interaction, including shopping, as being part of a challenge set by the DM. Next time my players try to sell stuff, they're gonna have some guy with a crap American accent offer them half of what everyone else'll pay. Y'all.

docnessuno

2012-12-15, 06:31 AM

It's like putting an armed bear trap on a playground, and then telling a bunch of 10-year-olds not to play with it. There's no reason for it to be there, and bad things will happen.

I don't see anything wrong with it. The smart kids will survive, that's how evolution happens.

Jokes aside, placing a big "do not push" red button in front of the players is something i enjoy too as a DM, it's a good way to teach players that taking risks can result in death.

ShriekingDrake

2012-12-15, 07:04 AM

You have a reasonable chance to kill anything in this game, starting from level 1.

I think it is worth reconsidering this assertion. Remove the word "reasonable" and this proposition itself becomes plausibly reasonable.

Threadnaught

2012-12-15, 07:41 AM

I think it is worth reconsidering this assertion. Remove the word "reasonable" and this proposition itself becomes plausibly reasonable.

What is reasonable makes sense, I will not remove it from my statement. A level 4 character has a reasonable chance of killing a Goblin and an Ancient Black Dragon. However, given the Dragon's power level, it is less likely to die.
It isn't impossible though, for a level 4 character to get an edge against a creature so far out of their league, that allows them to dominate them.

Archmage1

2012-12-15, 09:08 AM

as far as buying equipment goes: why on earth would I be buying alchemists fire in such quantities, as killing 5 a round requires 250 gold, which was all the money I had. Also, as previously demonstrated, killing 5 per round accomplishes nothing.

dantiesilva

2012-12-15, 10:05 AM

I agree with Tarith on that. And no actually it happened on our second day in town a short while after we woke up. Could he have done stuff, yes. Killing the archers though even I have to agree would have been pointless as between me and the npc cleric took out close to 70 a turn. The only reason the battle ended was that me and her split up because I knew how the battle was suppose to unfold, though I was not expecting her to die so quickly....Arrow volleys have to love them. So yea wasting his money on alchemist fire to do what I was already doing pointless. Taking out the captains which has been stated quite a few times though very helpful and useful. As it would have Saved me time. 5 groups on turn 3 I was heading for second group. Groups destroyed 5 and 41 of 3 30 of 4. Not bad in 3 rounds of combat with only the clerics being very effective and Tarith taking out a captain before charging the generals. Can I blame him? No, was it wise? No. Would he do it again? Every time and I can not blame him. If not for all the undead around the town I would have joined him and well from a no win to a no lose as I have sun devotion and they can not be within 5ft of me. Me and Tarith make our turns happen at the same time to weaken them and bam, they die. We just did not have enough time to prepare in game out of game we did but not in game.

ShriekingDrake

2012-12-15, 12:18 PM

What is reasonable makes sense, I will not remove it from my statement. A level 4 character has a reasonable chance of killing a Goblin and an Ancient Black Dragon. However, given the Dragon's power level, it is less likely to die.
It isn't impossible though, for a level 4 character to get an edge against a creature so far out of their league, that allows them to dominate them.

If you are equating "what is reasonable" with what "isn't impossible", I contend that this is too broad a definition of "reasonable". Within a fantasy role-playing game, anything is possible, which by that reasoning would mean that anything is reasonable.

I would also say while it is often the case that what is reasonable also "makes sense"--as you suggest above--the two notions are not coextensive.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion of what is or is not reasonable, but to the extent that you use what I consider to be an untenable of the definition of the word "reasonable", it is then becomes difficult to discuss anything that uses that term.

Jyton

2012-12-15, 07:06 PM

Granted, killing 5 a round, pretty pointless. Killing 45 a round, not so much. So you don't feel like buying alchemist fire, alright, liquor is likely to be similarly priced, if not more, but that's where RP comes in. Burst into the nearest tavern, declare something along the lines of "We're under attack by hordes of undead! We need to fight them off! Help us!" and make the appropriate rolls with (I think fairly substantial) circumstance bonuses. Hell, you might even get the bartender to carry the alcohol! Obviously, I'm looking at this from the outside, I can't possibly have all of the information, my point is simply that there are always options. Two of those options would be to either fight the commanders or to do something similar to what I've described above. You're only irrelevant to a battle if you let yourself be. The third and forth options (do nothing or attack the Flying Guarded Vampire General Observers) don't need to be where your considerations end.

If not for all the undead around the town I would have joined him and well from a no win to a no lose as I have sun devotion and they can not be within 5ft of me.

That's exactly my point. He chose "no win." As a result, (surprise) he didn't win. Poor choice. Reasonable choice? Sure, I'll say given his mindset and his experience I'm not about to fault him for making it. Everyone likes beating up the biggest bad in the neighborhood, and he has pulled it off before. In this case he chose "Overconfidence" as his weakness. I would suggest going with "faith in your friends" instead, in the future.

Archmage1

2012-12-15, 07:12 PM

Jyton

2012-12-15, 07:28 PM

Tavern was locked, and we were not expecting an attack by an army. So, extensive preparation was not an option. I figured that having an AC of ~50, and high saves+blink would let me survive for a round or two, until my spell stealing let me get something nice. Sadly, nope.

What we've got here is failure to communicate. When you went off to attack the supped up vampires in the sky alone, you expected to win. I get that. Your DM? Not expecting you to win. Sometimes you bite off more than you can chew. It's the DM's job to (try to) keep you from doing that without gimping your playstyle. You did something he didn't want you to do, and he might have handled it better. You were upset then, but no one is upset now, and everything worked out since the battle got retconned anyway. My posts here are (or at least they're intended to be) more of a thought exercise. Lets ignore for the moment the fact that, Hey! Hordes of super low level undead! What are clerics really really good at? annihilating hordes of undead! Ignoring that it might have simply been the cleric's turn in the spotlight for the moment, what might you have done differently? If you don't like the set the undead on fire option, (I personally LOVE the "set the undead on fire" option) come up with something else! That's the joy of playing an RPG. In a good group, the possibilities are very nearly endless.

Archmage1

2012-12-15, 07:30 PM

Well, the ideal solution would have been to turn the endless decanter of ale(yes, of ale) into holy water. If only we had a dwarf?

Jyton

2012-12-15, 07:37 PM

On a somewhat related note, I noticed from your character sheet that you are CN. "The tavern was locked"!? Really? Lol if "the tavern was locked" stops you from acquiring alcohol, that's the strangest Chaotic Nutral play I've ever seen! :smallbiggrin:

Archmage1

2012-12-15, 07:40 PM

See decanter of endless ale above, so alcohol is not really a problem(at least, until we sell it
Also, I might have declined to put many points into open lock.
And... I did not think of it. Which is probably the main reason.

AlanBruce

2012-12-15, 07:47 PM

The innkeeper locked the tavern because the townsfolk knew of what the BBEG could do, so they boarded themselves up. They had seen a similar battle not too long ago and where, understandably, afraid. Hence most of them locking up their homes and places of business. For fear of having the undead come in.

Archmage1

2012-12-15, 07:49 PM

Clearly, they have never really fought zombies. You need to have a killing field set up

Jyton

2012-12-15, 07:50 PM

Haha, I hadn't seen your decanter post when I made my last post. We're all friends here, I'm glad the situation worked out to all of your satisfaction in the end. And to be fair, it's one hell of a lot easier to look across a table as a GM and deliver the line "are you sure?" than it is to do so over the internet. Everyone makes bad calls now and then. I'm just trying to say that when you have two extremes, you don't always have to pick one. You can, and sometimes it's epic, but sometimes it's just, well, extreme. Or in this case, extremely deadly.

AlanBruce

2012-12-15, 08:06 PM

May I add that the decanter of endless ale was a custom item the drunken monk asked. He never stopped drinking. And I mean never. His Strength and Constitution rivaled that of Kord and Moradin combined. His will saves, though. Not that great.

Archmage1

2012-12-15, 08:10 PM

Well, I don't think he ever failed a will save...

AlanBruce

2012-12-15, 08:18 PM

In the Rose Garden. He fell asleep.

Archmage1

2012-12-15, 08:19 PM

I was pretty sure that was Tarith, who was then blinded.(2 nat ones vs dc 12)
Bishop was the one who killed the battlebriar.

AlanBruce

2012-12-15, 08:24 PM

Indeed he did. After that, he went to pick you up. That's when he was affected by the pollen and fell asleep, prompting the cleric to fly through the garden in a blazee of glory and get both of you out.

dantiesilva

2012-12-15, 10:39 PM

Oh the use of fire shield XD now that i think back on it though i see us all getting blown up. Bishop left his liquor open XD

Archmage1

2012-12-15, 10:47 PM

Luckily, Ale is not flammable. if you doubt me, go and get some cheap beer, and try to light it on fire.

dantiesilva

2012-12-15, 11:02 PM

If you can run in the bar and grab it to light on fire you can do it out of a magic item and make a lake of fire

Archmage1

2012-12-15, 11:06 PM

But that would involve burning down the bar. No. Just... no.
Also, we are once again, off topic.

TuggyNE

2012-12-16, 12:18 AM

Also, we are once again, off topic.

I was pretty sure there wasn't really an active topic anymore. :smallconfused:

AlanBruce

2012-12-16, 01:58 AM

I was pretty sure there wasn't really an active topic anymore. :smallconfused:

Agreed. Thank you all very much for your amazing input. If a moderator would be kind enough to close this, I would be most grateful, since I believe the problem has been cleared up.

Threadnaught

2012-12-16, 08:48 PM

If you are equating "what is reasonable" with what "isn't impossible", I contend that this is too broad a definition of "reasonable". Within a fantasy role-playing game, anything is possible, which by that reasoning would mean that anything is reasonable.

I would also say while it is often the case that what is reasonable also "makes sense"--as you suggest above--the two notions are not coextensive.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion of what is or is not reasonable, but to the extent that you use what I consider to be an untenable of the definition of the word "reasonable", it is then becomes difficult to discuss anything that uses that term.

A group of four level 1 players spend a few weeks diverting a river into a dungeon which contains a 15th level Fighter. Maybe you're right, it is absolutely unreasonable to think the players could kill something so far above their power level. :smalltongue:

By the way, I feel I need to point out how my post says kill rather than fight, those four guys wouldn't be able to take that Fighter head on, that's ridiculous. :smallamused:

Archmage1

2012-12-16, 08:50 PM

One of them is a wizard. The difficult becomes easy.

from the fighters perspective
Or do the really sneaky thing, and have an undead fighter.
Or one who has a helm of water breathing.
Or has a back way out.
Or, you know, actually has minions that watch the outside world

ShriekingDrake

2012-12-16, 09:12 PM

A group of four level 1 players spend a few weeks diverting a river into a dungeon which contains a 15th level Fighter. Maybe you're right, it is absolutely unreasonable to think the players could kill something so far above their power level. :smalltongue:

By the way, I feel I need to point out how my post says kill rather than fight, those four guys wouldn't be able to take that Fighter head on, that's ridiculous. :smallamused:

You appear to be digging yourself in deeper. A reasonable chance to kill a 15th level fighter--though you've not made the case that you'd be successful with the scenario you've described--is quite different than being able to kill anything. It's fine if you want to change your original assertion and make it about a fifteenth level fighter. And maybe you can make the case that you have a reasonable chance to kill a fifteenth level fighter, starting from level 1. But you said unmitigatedly and then wolfishly defended the proposition that "You have a reasonable chance to kill anything in this game, starting from level 1." It is a role-playing game and so imaginary and I agree that anything is possible in an imaginary world. But that does not mean that you have a reasonable chance to kill anything. For instance, your first level fighter (or wizard or druid or cleric) does not have a reasonable chance to kill a phane.

As far as I'm concerned, it's great that you have a sense of optimism about what is possible. But what is possible does not equate to what is reasonable.

Archmage1

2012-12-16, 09:13 PM

ShriekingDrake

2012-12-16, 10:04 PM

Well, in theory, somewhere, sometime, there has been a party that rolled all nat 20's. and the DM rolled all nat ones...

Of course, that relies on every possibility happening somewhere...

Ans relying on luck is generally not a good plan.

Exactly. It is possible, but not reasonable. You have the possible chance to have the rolls come out that way, but you do not have a reasonable chance that they will come out that way.

Archmage1

2012-12-16, 10:06 PM

Well, if you add cheating in...
The highly improbably becomes the probable.
Of course, cheating takes the fun out of anything.
At least, the first time through. If you can convince the DM to let you play the campaign again 10 levels higher, it might be interesting to see how events change.

ShriekingDrake

2012-12-16, 10:12 PM

Archmage1

2012-12-16, 10:15 PM

Depends on how you define cheating.
If you, say, define cheating as ignoring RAW...
You are not going to have a lot of fun.

Now, if you define cheating as
convincing the DM to allow something that is not raw legal
you are probably being a bit shady, depending on what it is

If, on the other hand, you define cheating as
creatively "modifying" dice rolls...
yea. definitely cheating.

ShriekingDrake

2012-12-16, 10:36 PM

Depends on how you define cheating.
If you, say, define cheating as ignoring RAW...
You are not going to have a lot of fun.

Oh, I agree with you here. Of course, even this has limits. There is certainly some ignoring of RAW that would allow a first level fighter to dispatch a phone--I expect that circumventing of RAW would be unreasonable. Or at least we would not be talking about the same game

Now, if you define cheating as
convincing the DM to allow something that is not raw legal
you are probably being a bit shady, depending on what it is I'd say this is similar to the above. Nothing wrong with substantial homebrew. But there does come a point where we are no longer talking about the same game.

If, on the other hand, you define cheating as
creatively "modifying" dice rolls...
yea. definitely cheating.

Agreed.

My only point in all this was that I felt that it was hyperbolic, at best, to say "You have a reasonable chance to kill anything in this game, starting from level 1." Threadnaught is most definitely entitled to his/her opinion, but as we discuss things posted in the forums, I thought this proposition erroneous and described it as such.

In the end, whatever makes the gaming most fun for players and DM alike is what matters most. Different groups will have different expectations about what is reasonable, fair, and fun. May we all find the right groups for us.

Archmage1

2012-12-16, 10:39 PM

Fair enough. Of course, getting a spree of nat 20's would be awesome.

Story

2012-12-16, 11:59 PM

Well, in theory, somewhere, sometime, there has been a party that rolled all nat 20's. and the DM rolled all nat ones...

Of course, that relies on every possibility happening somewhere...

Ans relying on luck is generally not a good plan.

What happens if the build doesn't autofail on nat 1s? Or is straight out immune to whatever you can do?

Archmage1

2012-12-17, 07:09 AM

Then you are opposing a wizard, cleric, druid, sorc, psion...

And you are screwed.

Threadnaught

2012-12-17, 08:06 AM

You appear to be digging yourself in deeper. A reasonable chance to kill a 15th level fighter--though you've not made the case that you'd be successful with the scenario you've described--is quite different than being able to kill anything.

As far as I'm concerned, it's great that you have a sense of optimism about what is possible. But what is possible does not equate to what is reasonable.

I chose a Fighter because it would be someone without the ability to suddenly start breathing water, 15th level because it seemed high enough to look impossible in a straight fight.

My only point in all this was that I felt that it was hyperbolic, at best, to say "You have a reasonable chance to kill anything in this game, starting from level 1." Threadnaught is most definitely entitled to his/her opinion, but as we discuss things posted in the forums, I thought this proposition erroneous and described it as such..

I probably haven't put enough emphasis on how it's possible to kill anything starting level one, with enough of an edge. This takes time and preparation, a level 2 party, of Commoners, could go toe to toe with a level 20 party of Artificer, Cleric, Druid and Wizard. Could they win? Well, we're not so much discussing a fight as we are a group of Commoners who are tasked with killing a group of high level Tier 1 characters, using any means necessary.
It isn't a question of how the Commoners would fail and how quickly they'd die, but how you'd take out the Tier 1 classes with what you've got. Remember, there are still opportunities to gain experience and level up, they've leveled up once already, from digging the river and killing the Fighter. :smallamused:

In the end, whatever makes the gaming most fun for players and DM alike is what matters most. Different groups will have different expectations about what is reasonable, fair, and fun. May we all find the right groups for us.

That, is definitely true.
Sometimes though, the players need to be challenged with impossible odds. Just to get them thinking a little. :smallwink:

ShriekingDrake

2012-12-17, 09:43 AM

I chose a Fighter because it would be someone without the ability to suddenly start breathing water, 15th level because it seemed high enough to look impossible in a straight fight.
Nothing wrong with that.

I probably haven't put enough emphasis on how it's possible to kill anything starting level one, with enough of an edge. This takes time and preparation, a level 2 party, of Commoners, could go toe to toe with a level 20 party of Artificer, Cleric, Druid and Wizard. Could they win? Well, we're not so much discussing a fight as we are a group of Commoners who are tasked with killing a group of high level Tier 1 characters, using any means necessary.
It isn't a question of how the Commoners would fail and how quickly they'd die, but how you'd take out the Tier 1 classes with what you've got. Remember, there are still opportunities to gain experience and level up, they've leveled up once already, from digging the river and killing the Fighter. :smallamused:
(emphasis added above) I don't disagree with you that it may be possible for the scenario you describe to play out where David beats Goliath. There is, however, not a "reasonable chance" that David would beat Goliath. Saying that "there is not a reasonable chance" is different than saying that "there is not a chance" that David beats Goliath. And it is this distinction that I commented on originally.

Put another way. If a player emerged on the boards saying that once his party of four commoners got to 2nd level, everywhere they went, all they got to fight was a group comprising Artificer 20, Cleric 20, Druid 20, and Wizard 20 who hunted and pursued them mercilessly with a kill-first-ask-questions-latter approach. Time and again, upon reaching 2nd level, the DM threw this Goliath group at the 2nd level commoners, resulting in TPK after TPK. Essentially, the players, no matter what they did, were forced to fight Goliath every time they got to 2nd level. We would say this was likely not to be fun, surely. But we would also say--akin to the OP's question--that this scenario was unfair. And the reason we would say it was unfair is because the David party of four 2nd level commoners did not have a reasonable chance of surviving.

That, is definitely true.
Sometimes though, the players need to be challenged with impossible odds. Just to get them thinking a little. :smallwink: I agree completely, but that doesn't give them a "reasonable chance" of survival/victory/success--it only gives them a "chance" of survival/victory/success. In this thread, the Spellthief had a chance against those vampires, but it wasn't a reasonable chance.

Anyway, I think you get what I'm saying. I don't think it's wrong to challenge players or even for parties to die. I, for instance, don't think the OP was unfair or unreasonable. He presented his party with a challenge, set out some bait (with signs saying, "hey this is bait and there's a hook in it"), and the spellthief said, "be damned the consequences" and took the bait. Given what he knew he might (at best) have thought he had a reasonable chance to survive the encounter. But because there were things he didn't know, it turns out he did not have a reasonable chance to survive. Putting players in this situation does not make one unreasonable or unfair (at least not necessarily so). But that doesn't mean that our spellthief ever had a reasonable chance of success.

Threadnaught

2012-12-17, 10:56 AM

I don't disagree with you that it may be possible for the scenario you describe to play out where David beats Goliath. There is, however, not a "reasonable chance" that David would beat Goliath. Saying that "there is not a reasonable chance" is different than saying that "there is not a chance" that David beats Goliath. And it is this distinction that I commented on originally.

In my Fighter scenario, David waits for Goliath to fall asleep so he can sneak up and slit his throat. The actual story shows a weaker man with an edge over an opponent of a greater challenge than his fighting ability.

Put another way. If a player emerged on the boards saying that once his party of four commoners got to 2nd level, everywhere they went, all they got to fight was a group comprising Artificer 20, Cleric 20, Druid 20, and Wizard 20 who hunted and pursued them mercilessly with a kill-first-ask-questions-latter approach. Time and again, upon reaching 2nd level, the DM threw this Goliath group at the 2nd level commoners, resulting in TPK after TPK. Essentially, the players, no matter what they did, were forced to fight Goliath every time they got to 2nd level. We would say this was likely not to be fun, surely. But we would also say--akin to the OP's question--that this scenario was unfair. And the reason we would say it was unfair is because the David party of four 2nd level commoners did not have a reasonable chance of surviving.

The Commoners are the ones doing the pursuing. They're told "these are your next targets, enjoy." and their targets are let loose in the world, to mind their business.
In the story David is defending his hometown from Goliath and his army, Goliath being the one who sought those weaker than him to slaughter.

In my version, David is hunting Goliath. :smallamused:

So, what would you do? I should probably make a thread for this. :smallbiggrin:

Story

2012-12-17, 12:39 PM

So, what would you do? I should probably make a thread for this. :smallbiggrin:

Become Punpun. It's the only way to have a reasonable chance.

NichG

2012-12-17, 01:41 PM

I'd cheat. Not die rolls or whatever, but I'd change the parameters of the engagement so that they go against the basic idea that has been set up. Make friends with higher level characters and get them to do it. Go find myself an elf willing to resurrect me in 1000 years after all the high level characters have died of natural causes or adventuring, kill myself, come back, and declare victory (doesn't work if the Lv20s have an elf of course, or if I can't find someone I can convince to resurrect me gratis). Basically either 'technical' wins that are hollow, or wins involving social leveraging of more powerful entities than myself.

Of course this'd have to be done in complete secrecy, which goes counter to trying to do social leveraging, so even that is likely to be a very rough road.

Threadnaught

2012-12-17, 09:10 PM

Become Punpun. It's the only way to have a reasonable chance.

They're level 2 Commoners. They're allowed to level up and take class levels in... Commoner, but no other classes are allowed.

The Tier 1s are high level enough as they are, the way they see it, they've been everywhere, done everything and stolen all the shirts. They're stationary, waiting in their magically protected fortress/fortresses to die, of old age as far as they're aware.

I'd cheat. Not die rolls or whatever, but I'd change the parameters of the engagement so that they go against the basic idea that has been set up. Make friends with higher level characters and get them to do it. Go find myself an elf willing to resurrect me in 1000 years after all the high level characters have died of natural causes or adventuring, kill myself, come back, and declare victory (doesn't work if the Lv20s have an elf of course, or if I can't find someone I can convince to resurrect me gratis). Basically either 'technical' wins that are hollow, or wins involving social leveraging of more powerful entities than myself.

That's actually not cheating, but it isn't really a victory either. Why are so many people struggling to grasp the concept of players killing things outside of combat as a valid choice?

Archmage1

2012-12-17, 09:13 PM

...
if you were a level 20 wizard, would you let a little thing like old age beat you? really?

Threadnaught

2012-12-17, 09:27 PM

...
if you were a level 20 wizard, would you let a little thing like old age beat you? really?

Whatever the Tier 1s' reasons for not going out to become stronger and level more and more, they're no longer earning exp, they're at a set level. A level the commoners must not reach themselves, lest they forfeit the challenge.

Starting thread.

NichG

2012-12-17, 11:21 PM

...
if you were a level 20 wizard, would you let a little thing like old age beat you? really?

Most solutions to old age in D&D involve dying as part of the process (reincarnation, becoming undead, ...). I'd call that a technical victory.

Story

2012-12-17, 11:30 PM

Not if they wrote it into their backstory.

Zale

2012-12-18, 02:08 AM

That's actually not cheating, but it isn't really a victory either. Why are so many people struggling to grasp the concept of players killing things outside of combat as a valid choice?

That requires catching a group of people with a good 18 levels on you off guard.

TuggyNE

2012-12-18, 03:06 AM

That requires catching a group of people with a good 18 levels on you off guard.

And, as an Emperor Tippy quote somewhere around here says, a Wizard (or other Tier 1, or even to a large extent any other class) does not get to level 20 by making a habit of being caught off guard. Paranoia starts being both useful and practical by the low-mid levels, and becomes essential in high levels, and then more essential still. Expecting to catch a Wizard 20 asleep, for example, or unawares while visibly wandering underground for no particular reason, is just not in character for them.

The specific example of catching a lone Fighter 15 who's spent several weeks in a dungeon with no particular contingency plans is also rather thoroughly contrived; it relies on the Fighter not emerging let's say a day early and clobbering those punks that tried to drown him, on prior knowledge that the Fighter is going in there in the first place, on a Fighter at that level even entering a dungeon anywhere near where level 1 characters can safely wander, on the Fighter being alone instead of with a party, on the dungeon itself actually being floodable by a river that happens to be vaguely nearby, and on and on.

(I'm also curious: how would these level 1 characters ever even be sure the Fighter was dead? It would take more weeks of effort to divert the water away, and an uncertain length of time for the water to then drain, and the dungeon itself, for various reasons, is almost certainly far too dangerous for them to enter even after it's been flooded and dried out again. All that's assuming they know the dungeon well enough to be sure there's no other exit than the one[s] they watch.)

NichG

2012-12-18, 03:20 AM

And, as an Emperor Tippy quote somewhere around here says, a Wizard (or other Tier 1, or even to a large extent any other class) does not get to level 20 by making a habit of being caught off guard. Paranoia starts being both useful and practical by the low-mid levels, and becomes essential in high levels, and then more essential still. Expecting to catch a Wizard 20 asleep, for example, or unawares while visibly wandering underground for no particular reason, is just not in character for them.

Actually, this is really an exaggeration. I've played many high level characters for whom this wasn't true nor ever needed to be true, and not just because they started at high level, but because like most adventurers they dealt primarily with things that they had nearly no chance of actually losing against (e.g. CR-appropriate encounters). Assuming that all high level people are hyper-paranoid, coldly rational, etc, etc is inconsistent with the actual high level characters that see play and the high level NPCs which generally are authored.

The specific example of catching a lone Fighter 15 who's spent several weeks in a dungeon with no particular contingency plans is also rather thoroughly contrived; it relies on the Fighter not emerging let's say a day early and clobbering those punks that tried to drown him, on prior knowledge that the Fighter is going in there in the first place, on a Fighter at that level even entering a dungeon anywhere near where level 1 characters can safely wander, on the Fighter being alone instead of with a party, on the dungeon itself actually being floodable by a river that happens to be vaguely nearby, and on and on.

This on the other hand I think is quite apt. Diverting a river isn't just going to be an off/on switch. There are going to be signs - loud noises, increasing humidity in the dungeon, even the first streams of water coming in that will convince the person that something is up.

But then again, its perfectly reasonable to posit that such insane Lv1 assassins may just have to wait for that perfect opportunity to turn 'no chance' into 'a glimmer of a chance'. Waiting for a perfect opportunity is also a tactic that can be employed.

TuggyNE

2012-12-18, 06:54 AM

Actually, this is really an exaggeration. I've played many high level characters for whom this wasn't true nor ever needed to be true, and not just because they started at high level, but because like most adventurers they dealt primarily with things that they had nearly no chance of actually losing against (e.g. CR-appropriate encounters). Assuming that all high level people are hyper-paranoid, coldly rational, etc, etc is inconsistent with the actual high level characters that see play and the high level NPCs which generally are authored.

Well, I'll bow to your experience here I guess.

But then again, its perfectly reasonable to posit that such insane Lv1 assassins may just have to wait for that perfect opportunity to turn 'no chance' into 'a glimmer of a chance'. Waiting for a perfect opportunity is also a tactic that can be employed.

True, although I have to say that even slanting it massively toward these hypothetical level 1/level 2 nutjobs doesn't seem to really manage to get into the realm of "reasonable chance" (say, a greater than 33% chance of succeeding once — ever — at their given goal). For example, they would have to first find a dungeon that would be of interest to a high-level character and has a river or so nearby without any annoying Fey or monsters in it, scout around outside (without getting killed) to find all entrances, begin diverting the river, and then wait for their Gather Information checks to notify when somebody wanders in. Then they have to hope they can finish in time and the target doesn't have any partners or useful magic items or adamantine swords (:smalltongue:).

On the other hand, if there's a sufficiently extreme optimization difference between the level 1 party and the level 15/20 enemies, it's not necessarily so bad, but I'm not sure that's what Threadnaught meant. (Given the lack of references to Domain Generalists, complicated shenanigans involving rebuked undead, and so forth, it seems unlikely.)

Anyone have a link to the thread started, by the way?

Story

2012-12-18, 12:08 PM

Anyone have a link to the thread started, by the way?

I'm curious about that too. I wasn't able to find it.

Threadnaught

2012-12-19, 10:49 AM

Having a little trouble getting the Tier 1s complete and storing files. Can I start it after Christmas?

Zale

2012-12-20, 08:56 AM

ShriekingDrake

2012-12-20, 12:06 PM

Why are you making the Tier 1's if you're saying that peasants could defeat them?

Unless you're going to make a thread and ask everyone else to try to defeat them. Which doesn't really prove your point, since you would want them to loose.

A fair point.

I believe what prompted this tangent is that I quibbled with Threadnaught's assertion that "You have a reasonable chance to kill anything in this game, starting from level 1."

Myself, I think that that proposition is flawed on its face and that it likely requires little, if any, testing. (Mind you, I have no problem with testing either Threadnaught's or my propositions because I think propositions asserted come with the assumption that they may/will be scrutinized with care.) I suspect that if we put Threadnaught's rogues gallery of Tier 1 first level characters successively up against any of a variety of high level creatures--even unadulterated creatures (as opposed to AlanBruce's vampires)--we will find that even if it is possible for the first level character to win, there is not a "reasonable chance" to win.

Prevailing against unreasonable odds is what fantasy is all about. There is nothing wrong with making stories like that or even for a DM to create a wonderful tale where the players do get to do the almost impossible. But--I know I reiterate--"possible" does not equal "reasonable chance".

It is possible to win the lottery, but one does not have a reasonable chance to do so. Of course, if you don't buy a ticket, you have no chance to win. If you buy a ticket, you have a chance, but it is not a reasonable one to win. If you buy a million tickets, you still don't have a reasonable chance of winning, even if your chances are better (your risks are also much greater).

Now it might be interesting to see if we can build a first level character, RAW, that can even win fifty percent of the time against a solid high-CR creature.

Story

2012-12-20, 12:23 PM

The odds of winning a typical lottery are so low that your chances aren't significantly improved by actually buying a ticket.

NichG

2012-12-20, 02:06 PM

Custom-built 1st level characters can defeat anything in the game by RAW, since there are Pun-Pun builds that come in that early. That's not really an interesting thing to explore.

The more interesting thing to explore in my opinion is the set of tactics and methods that can be used by characters of any level to defeat powerful foes. That is to say, the things which work not because of the innate power of the character but because of the appropriateness and cleverness of the tactic. The question then is, is there a point where no matter how clever the tactic, the difference in power cannot be made up. I suspect there is once you get to the levels in which there are no mundane ways around certain problems (such as the enemy being on another plane, or incapable of being permanently destroyed except in his divine realm, or whatever).

Story

2012-12-20, 03:39 PM

As the discussions of Tucker's Kobolds in 3.5e show, I think the answer is yes. A properly built level 12 party would breeze through the dungeon. (Even a meleer could just cut through the stone and bypass all the traps) Of course even in the original example, the party probably could have done a lot better if with smart tactics.

In 3.5, the Kobolds need cheesy stuff like Dragonwrought to have a chance.

rweird

2012-12-20, 05:31 PM

It really depends on the tactics each party uses, if the low-levels are aware of the opponents abilities, and have time to prepare, they can drop stuff on the opponent, collapse things, etc, though at some level, when you try to drop a bridge on the wizard, he'd be like "lol, no." and wipe the floor with them, for a fighter, unless the fighter gets enough items, that might not be so true, though he probably could survive (fighter 20 gets ~760,000 GP, buying stuff like a ring of blink would be easy, as well as anklets of transportation, as well as armor, weapons, potions, and whatnot, probably an Amulet of Astral Projection if Dragon Compendium is allowed to boot). I think that unoptimized fighter 1000 still can die if he has bad item selection (Drowning is a good way, if you could keep him underwater long enough, though spamming tanglefoot bags could work, if you have enough) to a first level party, though a fighter 1000 has pretty much no chance of getting that high level unless he is smart and tactical.