Killing a PC - Because it "makes sense" in a battle... [Archive]

Scorponok

2015-02-18, 03:37 AM

This isn't related to 3.5 specifically, but have you ever killed off a PC because it made sense in your storyline? I personally don't like to kill anyone off. They've after all, invested a lot of time and maybe even love into crafting their characters. But I've had a couple of instances where I've done it.

The most recent example was when, using rules the player himself misinterpreted, he was able to get off three fireballs in succession against a small squad of Frost Giants, killing two of them outright along with a third of their minions. The other players weren't doing much damage, so, in the next round, the other four Frost Giants all hurled boulders at his flying wizard. To save time, I generally roll my attacks all at once. So off went four d20s, and one confirmed the critical. He was deader than dead, and was extremely p!$$ed off that I did that to him. My reasoning was one PC took out a third of their force in a single round, of course they are all going to want to get rid of him first. The other players told me it was bad form and that I should've rolled each d20 separately, and quit targeting him as soon as his character got KO'ed. They said it still may have killed him, but at least there was a CHANCE he would survive. So what was meant to save a little time ended up killing a player.

Second example was a player who made a level-8 wizard. The PCs had found information on an NPC who was kidnapped, and wanted to rescue her. Long story short, they busted in, but not before the watch blew the horn for reinforcements. A bunch of level-8 fighters came into the house, and the wizard was by the door. He cast scorching ray on them, and he was dressed in wizardly clothes. They took a few swings at him, but instead of running away, he tried to get off more scorching rays (he had run out of higher level spells for the day). This went on for 3 rounds, while the enemies sliced and diced him up. By the time the encounter was done, the wizard was dead. Again, the player was pissed, even though he had 3 rounds to run away.

Third example was theoretical, and I stopped the player during character creation before this started. This is the same player in example #1. Me and the co-DM told him not to power game. So using the Big Eyes Small Mouth Player's Guide, he created an adventurer class that put all his class levels into an artefact that gave him something like +7 to all skills, +5 to all ability scores, and a whole host of other things I can't remember. His reasoning was that without his artefact, he was useless. My reasoning was it didn't fit into the campaign where the highest level NPC was around level-10 or 12, and there weren't very many artefacts like this in existence. And even if his character did manage to make such a thing, every ruler in existence would want to kill him for it. So to spare the party having waves of assassins coming after one character for that item, I refused to have that in the game. If I did allow it, it would make sense that his character would most likely be dead within a few nights of play.

Fourth example. The party was exploring a cave for a lost treasure that had gone missing in transit. Word got out around town, and people began to talk about it and form adventuring groups to try and recover the treasure. There was news of some groups trying to eliminate other groups while on the way to said cave. The players go deep into the cave system, and eventually encounter what seemed like a Sarlac creature. And there, beside it, what appeared to be some crates. Slippery slime covered the pit, requiring a balance check to not slip. If the player slips, another balance check is made, then another, increasing in difficulty from the last failed check. So the rogue player hears talking on the other side of the pit. The other players tell him to hide, but he decides he's going to try and be diplomatic. After all, they might be able to help each other get the treasure. He walks onto the slime, yells to the other side, and immediately, three sets of arrows come flying at him. He critically fails his first balance check, then fails two more. Finally, at the edge of the pit, he recovers. Next round, more arrows fly at him. He hits his ring of Feather Fall when he fails his last save, making things worse because the sarlac's teeth were right where he was floating down gently. Chew chew!

The fifth example is akin to the first one, except that it was a Dirgesinger who lowered the stats of two squads of the King's soldiers. (30 units) Of course, the sorceresses are going to take out a character who can do that, so they threw Ice Storms at him until he stopped moving.

Seems that these deaths make sense from a tactical standpoint, but the result is the same in the end - the player is sore that their character got killed. I'm not really sure what I can do about this as the only option I can think of is making every one of the NPCs have no tactical skills whatsoever.

Rowan Wolf

2015-02-18, 03:54 AM

One that first situation if he had that kind of nova capability why in the name of all that makes sense didn't he have an improved invisibility going while doing it. I only pull my punches because I roll abnormally high and sometimes that isn't fun on either side of the screen, but generally do dumb stuff and face the consequences.

Kid Jake

2015-02-18, 03:59 AM

In my case the players had specifically requested a deadly campaign or I might have been more lenient.

It started with the players deciding to split the party to cover more ground, even though I'd specifically warned them that the area was filled with desperate bandits that weren't known for taking prisoners. Well, they figured they could handle anything I could throw at them so they split up anyway. One of them headed through bandit territory to deliver a message, the other...did something else; I can't really remember at the moment.

About an hour before the PC reached his destination he was waylaid by half a dozen bandits who held crossbows on him and demanded his valuables. He puffs up, swaggers a little bit and asks "Do you know who I am?"

The bandits admit that they don't.

Naturally, he replies "I'm the sheriff of these parts and you've made a fatal mistake when you involved me in your shenanigans." He rolls an Intimidate to see whether or not his station impresses them and Rolls a 1, so I figured it'd be fun if instead of treating him as not scary at all; I'd treat him as TOO scary.

Everybody quakes in their boots and he's looking pretty smug when one of the bandits shouts "The sheriff's seen our faces. Get him!" and they unload on him with their crossbows. He actually is pretty darned scary and cuts through a couple of them like it's no thing, but the rest just dogpile him and beat him unconscious.

Then the bandits figure that if he really is a sheriff he might be worth some coin; so they send a messenger to the mayor (the other PC) saying that "If you ever want your sheriff back, you'll bring 1,000 pieces of gold and come alone."

The mayor heads out as instructed and meets what's left of the bandits in the woods; their leader is a big man wearing a large sack at his side who keeps demanding the gold in as churlish a manner as I can manage. The mayor wants to talk to the sheriff, the big man tells him no. The mayor wants proof that the sheriff is alive, the big man tells him no. The mayor wants some guarantee that he's not just turning over the town's treasury for nothing...the big man tells him no.

Now the mayor is a decently built cleric, so he summons up an equal or greater number of devils than there are bandits and the massacre is swift. He decides he'll check the big man for clues so that he can go and rescue his friend. The sheriff's player is groaning good naturedly about being dropped from badass status to damsel in distress....and that's when he finds it.

The mayor opens up the big sack on the leader's side and inside is the sheriff's severed head with his own badge stuffed in his mouth. The sheriff's player's mouth dropped and he's like "You Se7enved me?! That's messed up!" Then he started cackling and rolled up a druid.

Karl Aegis

2015-02-18, 04:30 AM

Either the character is holding an idiot ball or the character is too dumb to live. The player will (hopefully) learn how a sane person would act in a deadly situation (eventually). Or they will make a character that won't ever die to anything no matter how bad their tactics are.

For the players out there: Just because you think you're a "tank" doesn't mean you should put yourself at unnecessary risk. If there is total cover use it.

Dunditschia

2015-02-18, 05:00 AM

On the feather fall thing: even with a ring of feather fall, the character still falls at 60 feet per second. So unless that Sarlac had a lot of jaws, the player should still have landed in the stomach (or transdimensional portal or whatever) below the teeth.

The rest seems pretty reasonable though, although in the first example I would have had the giants stop throwing once the little man fell out of the sky (so just threat the attacks of the giants last in initiative as unused). Even if only unconscious, he probably would have died from falling damage though. Being a glass cannon without any defense is a really bad strategy.

HammeredWharf

2015-02-18, 05:09 AM

Sure. If they do dumb things, they die. Like trying to facetank three fighters as a wizard without good defenses. Yes, that gets people killed. Generally, however, I DM at a high enough optimization level for those things not to happen. I did make an encounter with a big, slow monster that hits hard a while ago. I clearly described the monster several times, but for some reason some of my players still decided to charge in and start hitting it. It hit them back, more than halving their HPs in a single round. After they didn't retreat for some bizarre reason, they got killed and the party's ranged characters had to take the monster out. I still have no idea why they did that.

Games aren't interesting if you can't lose.

Brookshw

2015-02-18, 06:46 AM

Seems fine. A character demonstrated they were a higher magnitude threat and the enemy acted accordingly in attempting to take him out. They have a significant enough intelligence score to have formulated the plan and made the tactical decision. Knowing this is a world of healing they opted for overkill rather than taking the chances of him getting back up. Finishing a downed opponent isn't exactly unheard of.

Personally I just roll the dice and let the chips land where they may. The possibility of a character dying is part of the game and coddling via removing repercussions of a characters actions takes away something important. All four attacks via one opponent, yup, makes sense from the in game perspective. Knowing when to run and how to prepare useful defenses is a valuable skill players should utilize.

goto124

2015-02-18, 08:29 AM

In my case the players had specifically requested a deadly campaign or I might have been more lenient.

This bit is important. I've seen cases where the players didn't realise the DM wasn't going to be easy on them, leading to arguments...

MrMercury

2015-02-18, 08:38 AM

I try to be a little bit lenient early game, where they don't have access to resurrection. After that, though, if they act like dumbasses they have to face the consequences (usually a pissed off party who had to shell out the 5000 gold to res them)

Deox

2015-02-18, 08:39 AM

Wizard wants to play catch with a giant. What could go wrong?

Most ways to speed up combat are welcomed and players should recognize that. No one wants that sit for 10 minutes while another PC thinks of what they're going to do. That being said, it makes sense that multiple giants would throw rocks and to save time, the attack rolls were lumped together. If it were my wizard, I would be stoked that I went out in such a grand fashion.

Scorching Ray instead of Expeditious Retreat.

Simple case of the player not on the same intelligence level of the character.

Artifacts
Fully justified. Do not allow something that simply would not fit into the game.

Slip n' Slide

Unlucky rolls. To be fair however, the mental imagery is amazing, not to mention memorable.

Icicles to the face

Altering the minds of people can have dangerous consequences. Now you're trying to do the same thing to the King's personal soldiers? Murder first, ask questions later is totally fine.

HammeredWharf was correct, imo: Games aren't interesting if you can't lose.

Oneris

2015-02-18, 08:45 AM

Seems fine. A character demonstrated they were a higher magnitude threat and the enemy acted accordingly in attempting to take him out. They have a significant enough intelligence score to have formulated the plan and made the tactical decision. Knowing this is a world of healing they opted for overkill rather than taking the chances of him getting back up. Finishing a downed opponent isn't exactly unheard of.

Of course, if it's overused, you get a case of players striving for mediocrity through 'not doing enough damage to become the sole target'. Which would make for either a very subtle or a very boring game indeed, and I suspect most RPG players can't pull off subtle.

DigoDragon

2015-02-18, 08:57 AM

Again, the player was pissed, even though he had 3 rounds to run away.

This is important so I'm going to point at it. :smallbiggrin:
I like to think that I'm a very nice GM. If the party runs into something particularly deadly (like a CR13 dragon when they're all level 8) I want to give them a way out so that they don't feel like they're trapped in a doomed battle. But if they charge into the beast and get slaughtered, well they can't really blame anyone but themselves then. You can lead the PCs to the exit, but you can't make them leave the dungeon.

Barstro

2015-02-18, 08:59 AM

The OP's versions of events all seem fair. I think PCs need to risk death for the game to be anything other than sitting down and writing a story.

HammeredWharf

2015-02-18, 09:14 AM

Of course, if it's overused, you get a case of players striving for mediocrity through 'not doing enough damage to become the sole target'. Which would make for either a very subtle or a very boring game indeed, and I suspect most RPG players can't pull off subtle.

That would get all of them killed. If they're smart, they'll start protecting their glass cannons instead. It's fine to have a guy with Shock Trooper, but when he rushes in the party should be prepared to support him and he should be prepared to take some hits.

Chronos

2015-02-18, 09:29 AM

Or not make glass cannons to begin with. Yes, of course you want offense, but you want defense to go with it, too. Glass cannons only work when they're so potent that they can kill (or otherwise neutralize) the entire enemy force before they have a chance to respond.

Sam K

2015-02-18, 09:51 AM

When you play the game of pwns you're either w1n or n00b. There is no middle ground.

If a player is going for death or glory, by cloth-tanking a squad of guards, blasting away half of the frost giants in one round (with no cover or defensive buffs), or picking a fight solo against six bandits, they should be expecting death or glory! If you're able to throw out multiple spells in a round (through optimization or creative rule interpretations) you are capable of putting up some defenses. Not doing so is your own silly fault.

Frozen_Feet

2015-02-18, 09:59 AM

Do I kill off my characters when it "makes sense for the storyline"?

Yes... when I'm writing a novel, or engaging in freeform roleplay which has more in common with co-authoring a novel or oral storytelling than any sort of game.

Games like D&D are a different beast entirely. Does it have rules for fighting and death? If yes, calculate the probability of loss, injury and death before engaging in any such behaviour. If there's even slightest chance of those happening, do not get into a fight unless you're willing to live with those results.

As such, as a player, when I engage my characters in potentially lethal and tragic situations, I do so with the expectation that something bad can happen to them. Plot armor would actually make feel cheated, as it reduces meaningful possible outcomes in a game.

As a GM, I kill off all characters when the rules and situation show it should happen. Even if it wasn't planned by the player beforehand. I wouldn't touch games like D&D with a 10' pole if I wasn't willing to see some character death happen as a result of bad decisions and random chance.

Vhaidara

2015-02-18, 10:03 AM

I have a GM who tended to add the Merciful effect to pretty much all of our enemies. Our group was pretty unpleasant (they were all okay, then you factored in my bard who did literally nothing but sing and give every +6 to hit/damage), so it let him add a bit more damage onto enemies, meant no one ever had to sit out for too long (we all had some kind of Out of Combat healing we could use), and let him turn TPKs into plot points as we were captured instead of killed.

BowStreetRunner

2015-02-18, 10:25 AM

There is a big difference between a character with mad skills and the player who runs that character. When was the last time you saw a wizard with a 20 intelligence run by a player with a 200 IQ, or a seasoned veteran ranger being run by a player with a brilliant tactical mind?

When I DM, I like very much to have my NPCs and monsters use tactics that make sense. In particular, I employ concepts that I learned during my own military service when designing encounters. However, I recognize that the players may not be up to employing decent counter-tactics themselves. When some of them do show a touch of brilliance in their strategies and tactics, I certainly let them have a chance to shine that way. But when they seem not to recognize what is happening tactically or strategically in the game, I help them out by discussing with them what their characters with their greater skills and experience see happening.

In your first example you might not only have pointed out to the wizard that he was drawing a lot of attention to himself, but you might have pointed it out to the other PCs that if they were not being effective against the frost giants, they might at least focus on better protecting the wizard who was being effective. In your other examples, similar warnings to the players would have been helpful. In fact, in your third example I think you did a good job preventing the player from taking an approach that was pretty much suicidal.

Ingus

2015-02-18, 10:53 AM

You did right in every case, maybe except the first (which is a minor problem anyway).

Only possible concern in situations like that is consistency.
In my games, enemies have different behaviours based on intelligence and wisdom (and sometimes "experience" A.K.A. levels, to avoid generals - usually fighters - taking idiot decisions), which determine if they have good strategical skills or not.
If they have, they'll tend to do correct tactical and strategical decisions.

Back to the point, the only dubious tactical decision is the one of the giants. In my opinion, it's more useful knock down one opponent and then attack another one instead of kill off the first opponent.

The reactions, though, seems to show that your players are expecting more easy games. Maybe talking to them is a good idea.
When I told players I will turn 'lethal mode' on, I haven't had any complain even with TPK.
Is it a matter of communication, maybe?

weckar

2015-02-18, 11:04 AM

Well, you know.... to abuse an adage: Crit Happens

Psyren

2015-02-18, 11:11 AM

Telonius

2015-02-18, 11:16 AM

I tend to softball it a bit for beginning players, and in the lower levels. And I never, ever go for automatic kill switches (like using Blasphemy on a low-level party). But if the players are doing something truly stupid, there will be consequences. (From the OP, "low-level Wizard failing to run away from 8 guards" counts as truly stupid). Even without obviously suicidal tendencies, battles are supposed to carry a serious threat of death. Tactics can have a major effect, and dice can always commit treason. That's just part of the game.

Sliver

2015-02-18, 11:34 AM

I only killed two PCs before, and it wasn't permanent either...

One death, one of the players was rather a newbie and stayed within melee even though her HP was running low. When I hit her with a 13 damage attack, she announced that she's dead. She was pretty upset, and I didn't really want to teach her a lesson about the game or anything, so I gave her a choice. I used a plot point that I already established, for myself, the players didn't know of it at the time, to resurrect her.

The other time was when one of the PCs, a warforged made out of cloth, had Fire Vulnerability. At the start of a fight, an enemy caster randomly targeted him with a Scorching Ray and scored enough that with the increased damage, the PC went up in flames and died. Was too late to fudge the roll, but... Well, yeah, I saved the PC. They earlier found out that he was basically a god to a group of people, though it wasn't known to him until they reached his own church, and they had a statue of him. So I decided that he came back to life as that statue.

I almost killed 3 out of 4 PCs in a recent battle, with the last one having high enough AC to be hit only on a Nat 20. 3 of the group were in the negatives, while the fourth PC was outnumbered and the opposition had reasons to capture the group alive, so they threatened the last PC with a CdG, and that is how that battle ended.

I usually DM in PbP games and my games rarely run for too long due to the nature of PbP, so I don't really get the chance to leave the "it's too early in the game and I don't want to off a character right away just because of a lucky roll" part of the game, so I'll sometimes fudge the rolls a bit to keep them alive, or find an in-game reason for why they should be saved...

Kid Jake

2015-02-18, 11:52 AM

I liked this story! The only part I found iffy was that it seemed like he was already dead before the cleric even got out there, and neither his player nor the cleric's knew it. Once the other player agreed to try and save him at all, I might make it difficult to do so but there would always be at least a slim chance. But the death was almost purely a result of their own poor choices and ignoring your warnings, so I'd say it's hard to find fault here otherwise.

Thanks, it was one of the first big twists in my Pathfinder journal. :smalltongue: He'd actually been critted during the fight and just hadn't noticed it, so he'd already dropped to dead when I told him "You black out." Then I confirmed with him that they wanted me to run the villains as ruthless and lethal as they were and he was like "Yeah, I don't want any safety net." So I went through with it and, after asking if he minded a 'bad' surprise, didn't tell him until the head was found IG. If he hadn't been so insistent I probably would've fudged things so that his partner would've found him naked in a ditch somewhere, because the character was so much fun.

The funny part was that they were just a bunch of level 1 Warriors and he was a pretty beefy Level 6 Fighter. When he'd swing his weapon he'd kill a man, no need to roll damage AND usually the man standing next to him. The dice just turned on him HARD.

jaydubs

2015-02-18, 12:11 PM

When I roll multiple dice, I still switch off of PCs when they go unconscious. It's not really a big stretch (or unreasonable), since I almost always do it when I'm a PC as well. And the reasoning is the same.

It saves a lot of time for me to roll 4 dice all at once if I have 4 attacks. But that doesn't mean I'm going to keep plugging away at the enemy I just downed. I'll switch targets to end the fight faster, and just swap to the appropriate attack bonuses. It's a time saving mechanism. Forcing a choice between having the game run quickly and being able to choose targets as a player (or DM) wants is silly.

The only caveat is to prevent players from being too metagame about it. As long as they don't pull "oh a 20, I'll throw this arrow at the high AC guy" shenanigans, it's not a problem. For players that try those shenanigans, just ask for an order of enemies they'll attack before they roll.

Now that we're past that part, the only question is - does it make sense to kill a player character? And honestly, it's usually better to ask - can I think of a good reason they would target someone else instead? And the answer is almost always yes. There's lots of things a DM does for out-of-game reasons. When it makes sense for enemies to either kill a downed character or do something else, take the fact the player will be pissed, and give it a nudge towards something else. It doesn't suddenly make the world easy mode. They can still die from a single high damage hit, AoEs, bleeding out, failing saves, falling off cliffs, traps, TPKs, and a huge number of other things. But "DM executes downed PC" just tends to get people more riled up, because you didn't have to make that choice.

ComaVision

2015-02-18, 12:12 PM

The only time I've pulled punches is when it was the difference between having a TPK or not. The group was 4 level 4s, and they were in a T intersection in an underground dungeon. None of them had low-light or darkvision, so from out of the dark they were pelted by drow poison crossbow bolts. It took 3 or 4 rounds before they all failed their Fort save but none of the conscious party members left the intersection, or moved towards the attackers even.

They should have all been CdG'd but this was like 15 minutes in to the session. Instead, I had the drow (5 level 1s) drag the characters towards where a Fiendish Spider was for live food. Three of them passed their second Fort save and woke up to save the day. The fourth member died because they left him passed out in the dungeon by himself and he was eventually found by a Dire Wolf.

WeaselGuy

2015-02-18, 12:43 PM

I'll admit, I'm a bit of a rookie DM. I personally prefer to just make fancy characters. But, when I'm behind the screen, I tell my players that if their enemies have an intelligence greater than 7, or if they continuously work with priests/magi, they will utilize some sort of "kill the squishy" tactics.

When my wife DMs, she's told us before "why in the name of the Abyss would I attack a spiked tin can when there is a softly wrapped morsel 20 feet to the left?".

In the oh so eloquent words of one of our other players, when he DMs (by the way, we all pretty much DM at some point, rotating out campaigns when someone needs time to work on theirs) "A little cheese can give nice flavor. But if you go full on gouda, I'm sending demons with class levels at you". And he did too. That damn Succubus Scout wouldn't stop skirmishing against my DMM:P Cleric...

And Tony, well... he has no qualms killing us off whenever he damn well feels like it, especially when we do stupid stuff. Course, he may be upset that he went through 3 characters in my wife's campaign within 4 levels. I mean, at some point, it has to be expected when you get into a punching contest with an ooze.

jjcrpntr

2015-02-18, 02:22 PM

OP, I don't see any problem with what you did to that guy/guys. I tend to play monsters/npc's to their intellect. If someone is beating the hell out of some monsters and the party ranger shoots and hits for 5 damage while the barbarian is hacking/cleaving things apart the monsters probably are going to stick with the prime threat.

As for the wizard getting crushed by rocks. I can see both sides. To me it's like with archers. I like that as an archer I can switch targets when I have multiple shots, but the idea that someone is going to shoot, stop and say "ok is it dead? No? Shoot again". In reality you'd fire the barrage until the thing is no longer moving.

WeaselGuy

2015-02-18, 02:28 PM

Oh yeah, @ the OP... If they were my giants, and they had just seen 3 of their giant buddies get nuked by a wizard? #RocksFallYouDie. Literally though. No remorse.

@ the Wizard: I don't normally play squishies or casters (and yet I still die all the time...) but if you get emotionally attached to your character, you should take the proper defensive measures to ensure you don't meet your own untimely demise.

Shining Wrath

2015-02-18, 02:42 PM

Glass cannons do tend to draw enemy fire from intelligent enemies.

Baxter Konrad

2015-02-18, 04:13 PM

I think you were right to deal with him that way. I did something very similar in a military campaign; my players took over a cannon battery and starting firing on the enemy army. Very soon after, the enemy cannons began firing on their position - like attacks like, after all.

Of course, in my case the players were pretty safe from death. However, they were only safe from death so long as they didn't get cocky. The guns were a quest marker - take them, blow holes in the enemy line, move through the hole you blew to get more stuff done. If they'd have stayed and got into a gun fight, then there'd have been no plot armour to save them.

Scorponok

2015-02-18, 09:38 PM

bjoern

2015-02-18, 10:17 PM

Several campaigns ago, were fighting a Balor. After a long and difficult battle, the BSF finally dealt the final blow.

US- YES! VICTORY!

DM- the balors death throws deals XX damage to all of you, roll saving throws.

US- made it, made it, I fail but I'm still alive.

BSF- I fail, and I'm at -10. I'm dead
And.......
I have death throws too.

DM- roll saves

US-fail, fail, fail.

DM- take XX damage.

US-........your guy sucks dude

EVERYONE- wheres the folder with the blank character sheets?

Renen

2015-02-18, 10:39 PM

Everything seems legit to me.
Only time as a player I would call BS in this case, is if mindless enemies tried to do that.

Jack_Simth

2015-02-18, 10:52 PM

Karl Aegis

2015-02-19, 12:15 AM

If you're having trouble with attacks from far away you can always use the shrink item spell to have your guys toss out and hide behind heavy fortifications that provide total cover. The spell lasts for days, so even foot soldiers can have a reliable way to block ranged attacks. Even a bunch of wands aren't exactly that expensive.

3WhiteFox3

2015-02-19, 12:50 AM

I'm honestly not certain why people think this situation was fair. Now, I have nothing against PC death, but when a DM ignores important rules, and (most importantly) breaks immersion, I have serious issues. Now, I'm open to the fact that the OP is clearly from a different school of GMing than I am, but, even putting away stylistic differences I feel that the first example was handled poorly. I have nothing against the DM on a personal level (I don't know him) but I'm speaking as a long-time GM myself.

To save time, I generally roll my attacks all at once. So off went four d20s, and one confirmed the critical. This is seems unfair, you don't know which attack landed in which order, so you don't know how to even correctly narrate the attack. The concept of the turn is a foundation of D&D and all RPGs with even a hint of tactical combat. In any semblance of reality, actions happen, then resolve in a logical order. This is why games like 3.5 have initiative (and even older editions of D&D had a time scale that things happened in), so that once one action resolves, new possibilities lie before you. That's what makes good stories, seeing the consequences of actions, but no, you decided that the WIzard needed to die (because four attacks from giants are going to kill any wizard), and that's what happened. There's nothing interesting there.

if I were playing that's what I'd be upset at, poor storytelling. You seem to have interpreted the roll to happen in the worst way for the player (assuming the crit happened last), if I didn't know you as a GM (which the player doesn't seem to) I'd probably wonder if you were gunning for me unfairly. It's an issue of trust (most GM/Player issues stem from this).

Here's the thing, in any good story events happen sequentially, and how the order in which attacks happen is important.

In order to illustrate my point, here's an example. The first attack crits, the Wizard is KO'ed but not dead (yet), he falls and let's assume that he survives (though, he might not). There is now a great story moment set up, here and an interesting dilemma for the Giants, the Wizard's been neutralized for now, but he still has friends, do you go kill the incapacitated Wizard (assuming he didn't land behind an object that obstructs their vision, which might create interesting consequences of it's own) or go after his still functioning friends? This creates a incredibly different scenario, creates tension, still has definite consequences for the Wizard (he's not getting off scott free for a bad plan) but the player now has an investment in what happens next, and is probably much happier. That's just one possibility of a host of interesting situations rather than the very simplistic, you died roll a new character.

He was deader than dead, and was extremely p!$$ed off that I did that to him. My reasoning was one PC took out a third of their force in a single round, of course they are all going to want to get rid of him first.

Bad logic, if the intent of the Giants is to stop a threat, killing him isn't necessary for their goals. Why does stopping a threat mean get rid of? There are many ways to stop a threat, knocking them unconscious is a perfectly acceptable one, and then they get to throw boulders at the other PCs (so that it doesn't seem like you're picking on the Wizard). You already decided that the Wizard should die and he did, you didn't even need to roll at that point, just tell him that he died and at least stop hiding behind the dice rolls. Just say rocks fall, you die and be over with it.

The other players told me it was bad form and that I should've rolled each d20 separately, and quit targeting him as soon as his character got KO'ed. They said it still may have killed him, but at least there was a CHANCE he would survive. So what was meant to save a little time ended up killing a player. First, if the entire group is having a problem, that's a big deal. I've been on the end of PC death before (any experienced player has), but you accept it and move on, even if it bugs you a little, because the point of the game is to have fun as a group, and most groups will console the player and help him start having fun again. If as a GM my entire group said, 'dude, you messed up, that's not the style of game we like (because they don't seem to want extremely deadly games' then, even if I didn't agree, I'd at least look at things from their perspective. In fact, looking at it from another perspective, let's say you have been making this awesome campaign, and you have a great villain, however, the PCs realize that he's the villain earlier than you anticipate, and they decide that the most tactical answer is to kill him. They decide to ignore the rules about turn sequence and attack at the same time, throwing down a mess of d20s, one of them being a crit. Would you be ok with this? That you weren't given any choice in the matter, no way of narrating a new situation that let you keep the villain? If you do, then maybe the issue is simply one of difference between player and DM style, in which case, it's bad form to present the players as whining, just because there are stylistic differences between your approaches.

Seems that these deaths make sense from a tactical standpoint, but the result is the same in the end - the player is sore that their character got killed. I'm not really sure what I can do about this as the only option I can think of is making every one of the NPCs have no tactical skills whatsoever.

Nope, the first example at the very least doesn't make sense from a tactical standpoint (or if you disagree, at least recognise that it wasn't the only choice you could have made from a perfectly reasonable standpoint. You weren't forced to kill a PC, you chose to do so, there's a big difference. I haven't looked at the others so I don't know.

Also, it's 1:00 AM here, so I don't know if this post will be coherent, but I wanted to get this off of my chest.

Renen

2015-02-19, 12:58 AM

The wizard would have died either way. The OP said he was 800 feet in the air. Fall from that height is deadly.

MrMercury

2015-02-19, 01:00 AM

Bad logic, if the intent of the Giants is to stop a threat, killing him isn't necessary for their goals. Why does stopping a threat mean get rid of? There are many ways to stop a threat, knocking them unconscious is a perfectly acceptable one, and then they get to throw boulders at the other PCs (so that it doesn't seem like you're picking on the Wizard). You already decided that the Wizard should die and he did, you didn't even need to roll at that point, just tell him that he died and at least stop hiding behind the dice rolls. Just say rocks fall, you die and be over with it.

I'm going to take an issue with his point in particular, because in a situation where there is an enemy who is doing more damage than anyone else, I'd want to get rid of them, permanently. No "he wakes up and blasts in the back." I'm going to sock him til I'm sure he won't get back up to cut off another 33% of my force.

ALSO, giants aren't the smartest of creatures. They want him out of the way. Out of the way= dead. Not unconscious, dead.

3WhiteFox3

2015-02-19, 01:16 AM

I'm going to take an issue with his point in particular, because in a situation where there is an enemy who is doing more damage than anyone else, I'd want to get rid of them, permanently. No "he wakes up and blasts in the back." I'm going to sock him til I'm sure he won't get back up to cut off another 33% of my force.

ALSO, giants aren't the smartest of creatures. They want him out of the way. Out of the way= dead. Not unconscious, dead.

Since I misinterpreted the situation from the very get-go (wizard would be dead either way), I'm not going to argue with you here. Instead of debating the logic, what I will say is that I don't think it was a good decision from a narrative perspective. And especially since, I as a player could understand feeling cheated (though, I will say that the player definitely made a poor tactical choice) he did accomplish his goal, I am not sure about punishing someone for succeeding on their course of action.

But then again, unlike most here, I put story and the shared narrative above punishing the players for bad tactics (I really don't get why so many insist on teaching the player's a lesson), I won't hesitate to let the opponents take advantage of such tactics, but only if it makes the session more intense as a whole. For me, when a PC screws up, that's a great opportunity for character development and for the PC (not the player) to learn a lesson about how to do better in tactical situations.

But, that's mainly a stylistic difference, and a very subjective one at that. The only thing I'd like to stress is that as a GM it's very important to see things from the player's perspective.

EDIT: Wait a minute, if the wizard was 800 ft in the air how did the giants, see him? Let alone hit him? That's a -80 to spot checks to see the wizard, even if he's not hiding (and that's not even using pythagorean theorem there) also 800 ft is over 5 range increments for a thrown boulder, it doesn't have the range). Am I missing something? (It wouldn't surprise me, I'm really tired.)

HammeredWharf

2015-02-19, 02:21 AM

EDIT: Wait a minute, if the wizard was 800 ft in the air how did the giants, see him? Let alone hit him? That's a -80 to spot checks to see the wizard, even if he's not hiding (and that's not even using pythagorean theorem there) also 800 ft is over 5 range increments for a thrown boulder, it doesn't have the range). Am I missing something? (It wouldn't surprise me, I'm really tired.)

He wasn't, but you don't need an 800 feet drop to get enough damage to go from unconscious to dead. Also, you only need to roll Spot if someone's hiding and the wizard doesn't have anything to hide behind in the air.

The Insanity

2015-02-19, 03:22 AM

have you ever killed off a PC because it made sense in your storyline?
I tried to. Succeeded in some cases.

Yahzi

2015-02-19, 05:21 AM

Fourth example.
This is the only one that is a little bit unfair. Just going to talk to someone doesn't necessarily lead to insta-death.

The others, however, are fair. The players are being done to just as they did to others. If they can nova on the enemy, why can't the enemy nova on them? The enemy's actions should come as no surprise, since they are simply mirrors of the player's actions.

Coidzor

2015-02-19, 05:38 AM

Regarding the "stoned" wizard, some of the other players told me what was even funnier was that he couldn't blame the DM entirely for it, and was angry at himself. First, for thinking that the giants only had a 20 ft. range for their boulders, and secondly, for not using invisibility, flying 800+ ft. (level-13 wizard) in the air, and raining down fireballs on the army.

Something seems off here, then, as to their ability to even attack him. :smallconfused:

120 feet * 5 = 600 feet = the maximum distance a frost giant can throw a rock.

Since you didn't specify a number, but we know it's at least 800 feet...

800 feet is your a. a^2 = 640,000

600 feet is your b. b^2 = 360,000

a^2 + b^2 = c^2 = 1000000

sq rt (1000000) = 1000 feet.

There is no way a giant could hit your wizard at that height if their distance from one another on the horizontal axis was the maximum range of the giant's thrown rock.

5 feet as b instead, then.

640,000+25 = 640,025
square root of 640,025 = 800.015624847

There is no way they should have been able to hit him in the first place at that height, even if they'd have been adjacent to him if he were on the ground next to them. Even taking their own height into account.

Edit: So, how high was he anyway, do you recall?

Fourth example. The party was exploring a cave for a lost treasure that had gone missing in transit. Word got out around town, and people began to talk about it and form adventuring groups to try and recover the treasure. There was news of some groups trying to eliminate other groups while on the way to said cave. The players go deep into the cave system, and eventually encounter what seemed like a Sarlac creature. And there, beside it, what appeared to be some crates. Slippery slime covered the pit, requiring a balance check to not slip. If the player slips, another balance check is made, then another, increasing in difficulty from the last failed check. So the rogue player hears talking on the other side of the pit. The other players tell him to hide, but he decides he's going to try and be diplomatic. After all, they might be able to help each other get the treasure. He walks onto the slime, yells to the other side, and immediately, three sets of arrows come flying at him. He critically fails his first balance check, then fails two more. Finally, at the edge of the pit, he recovers. Next round, more arrows fly at him. He hits his ring of Feather Fall when he fails his last save, making things worse because the sarlac's teeth were right where he was floating down gently. Chew chew!

The fifth example is akin to the first one, except that it was a Dirgesinger who lowered the stats of two squads of the King's soldiers. (30 units) Of course, the sorceresses are going to take out a character who can do that, so they threw Ice Storms at him until he stopped moving.

Seems that these deaths make sense from a tactical standpoint, but the result is the same in the end - the player is sore that their character got killed. I'm not really sure what I can do about this as the only option I can think of is making every one of the NPCs have no tactical skills whatsoever.

If their goal is to eliminate other adventuring groups, then they'd *want* the rest of the group to be made vulnerable by revealing themselves instead of blind-firing at one person trying to hail them, showing their hand far, far too soon. So it really does not make sense from a tactical standpoint to KOS without first figuring out what they were killing. Also, having reflex saves set up like you did where they're progressively worse to give the illusion of being merciful is not exactly fair, either.

As for the sorceresses... That seems to be more a problem of having deliberately unwinnable, unescapable encounters and not communicating this clearly. :smallconfused:

Sliver

2015-02-19, 08:15 AM

Something seems off here, then, as to their ability to even attack him. :smallconfused:

120 feet * 5 = 600 feet = the maximum distance a frost giant can throw a rock.

Since you didn't specify a number, but we know it's at least 800 feet...

800 feet is your a. a^2 = 640,000

600 feet is your b. b^2 = 360,000

a^2 + b^2 = c^2 = 1000000

sq rt (1000000) = 1000 feet.

There is no way a giant could hit your wizard at that height if their distance from one another on the horizontal axis was the maximum range of the giant's thrown rock.

5 feet as b instead, then.

640,000+25 = 640,025
square root of 640,025 = 800.015624847

There is no way they should have been able to hit him in the first place at that height, even if they'd have been adjacent to him if he were on the ground next to them. Even taking their own height into account.

You realize that the post you quoted is that the players saying the wizard was stupid for not flying 800ft up, or going for any of the other defensive options he had?

Barstro

2015-02-19, 08:59 AM

This is seems unfair, you don't know which attack landed in which order, so you don't know how to even correctly narrate the attack.

I agree that this can potentially not allow for good narration and is why I would prefer things being done in order with correct strategy. This particular instance seems ok, though, because the enemies saw a powerful creature and all turned to throw their objects at once. "All the boulders hit you. The first three kill you and the last two give a giant F-U to your corpse."

But, I disagree with this style of initiative being unfair. This way of handling enemy rolls is rather common in my decades of sporadic play and is usually to the PC's benefit. All the PCs need to do is survive the first attack, and then it is all the PCs who get to target the enemies one at a time. This is nothing different than the enemies winning the surprise round. It seems unfair only because this was a rare instance when the PCs were on the losing end of statistics (but not unfairness).

Sam K

2015-02-19, 09:02 AM

But then again, unlike most here, I put story and the shared narrative above punishing the players for bad tactics (I really don't get why so many insist on teaching the player's a lesson), I won't hesitate to let the opponents take advantage of such tactics, but only if it makes the session more intense as a whole. For me, when a PC screws up, that's a great opportunity for character development and for the PC (not the player) to learn a lesson about how to do better in tactical situations.

But, that's mainly a stylistic difference, and a very subjective one at that. The only thing I'd like to stress is that as a GM it's very important to see things from the player's perspective.

Honestly, I think that from a narrative perspective, anything other than responding with full force wouldn't make sense. Outside of very disciplined elite forces with a reason to take prisoners, maximum force is the reasonable response against a single combatant just vaporizing several of your allies. If you are fighting 3 guys with nerf bats and one with a machine gun, you don't pull punches against the machinegun-guy.

I don't think this is as much punishment as it is having the enemy react in a reasonable manner. Keep in mind, in a fantasy world, creatures are aware of things like magical healing. In real life, someone shot in the leg may be out of the fight. In a fantasy world, someone knocked out can get back into the fight in a few seconds, fighting at full capacity.

Oko and Qailee

2015-02-19, 10:39 AM

Since I misinterpreted the situation from the very get-go (wizard would be dead either way), I'm not going to argue with you here. Instead of debating the logic, what I will say is that I don't think it was a good decision from a narrative perspective.)

If you're arguing about it from a narrative perspective, wouldn't it make sense for all the giants to attack him regardless (whether with or without sequential rolls). Because those giants, or any intelligent enemy, knows that that person is dang scary and could kill them all with another blast of fire, and the giants have no way of knowing he is down for good without seeing him mangled to a pulp (remember, enemies don't see how much HP you have).

I understand why you'd think the DM was gunning for you, but really the intelligence of creatures is important, or else there might as well be no thought and risk to combat. A player placing himself in the open should get hit. I do think sometimes the DM should let players by with suboptimal decisions (or else, given some murderhobo's, you'd have a death every session), but players dying because they made a dumb decision is natural... how else is death supposed to occur?

BWR

2015-02-19, 11:32 AM

Sure it happens. I've had characters killed off because their actions put them in situations where people with power wanted to kill them. I've done the same to PCs in games I've run. What has never happened is a GM just saying 'you die' without any build-up or good reason. PC death that isn't the result of normal combat is always the logical consequences of player/PC actions.
Some games (and I'm talking about expectations around the table, not just settings or systems) accept that PCs can die easily no matter how much you love them. Some games, e.g. L5R expect your PC to die. One of the common character creation questions in L5R is "how will your character die?"
Story and personality, not just dice rolls, can be an important factor in when and how a PC dies.

Coidzor

2015-02-19, 01:49 PM

You realize that the post you quoted is that the players saying the wizard was stupid for not flying 800ft up, or going for any of the other defensive options he had?

:smallredface: That does explain why something seemed off about that post, then. Though at least I'm not the only one who made that mistake.

If you're arguing about it from a narrative perspective, wouldn't it make sense for all the giants to attack him regardless (whether with or without sequential rolls). Because those giants, or any intelligent enemy, knows that that person is dang scary and could kill them all with another blast of fire, and the giants have no way of knowing he is down for good without seeing him mangled to a pulp (remember, enemies don't see how much HP you have).

It would make sense for them to start fighting the rest of the opposing force after dropping the wizard, because, setting aside the whole abstraction of combat rules for a moment, any additional rocks would be a waste and liable to miss unless they were particularly good at leading their shots. And they'd want to get over to where he fell ASAP to make sure no parts of the body are recoverable.

nedz

2015-02-19, 03:31 PM

#1 Player error — Wizard out on his own, with no cover, draws aggro, dies. Why hadn't he cast Mirror Image or similar ?

#2 Player error — Wizard out on his own, in the front line, draws aggro, dies. Why didn't he run away or, block the door or even just use an AoE targeting Will saves ?

Wizards are a very powerful class, but Player > Build > Class — or the other way around in this case.

#3 Fair call — player was being a jerk. Banning this probably did him a favour.

#4 Player error — Rogue fails recon, in fact he doesn't even try to do his job.

#5 Not enough information to be sure, just sounds like mid-high level play to me. Bring on the Clerics.

Seems that these deaths make sense from a tactical standpoint, but the result is the same in the end - the player is sore that their character got killed. I'm not really sure what I can do about this as the only option I can think of is making every one of the NPCs have no tactical skills whatsoever.

This is the only way some of them learn — or not.

Like other posters I'm quite restrained at low level, but once they can arrange for a raise then the gloves come off.

I did once have a player complain that I was being too soft. His character died twice that session, as did another. This wasn't deliberate on my part though the complaints did stop abruptly.

ksbsnowowl

2015-02-19, 04:59 PM

I just accidentally killed a PC last week. The Eberron party was just finishing up an adventure that ended in Thrane. In the process of making their way to a Lightning Rail station and waiting on a train going the direction they needed, a Thranish NPC that had shown up and assisted them with the end of the previous adventure was subjected to questioning by a zealous superior who was inquiring about where the NPC had been. The overzealous boss made use of Detect Thoughts and Discern Lies to question the NPC behind closed doors, and learned the PC's had captured a vampire. This was all behind-the-scenes set up for the actual combat encounter for the end of the night.

The zealous cardinal began to hurry toward the lightning rail station with his Silvereye Marauder (5N) just as the lightning rail was pulling out of the station. The 12-HD Silvereye Marauder had the Run feat, and as a construct without a Con score, can run without stopping, and was fast enough it could gain on the lightning rail. So, the silvereye marauder is chasing after the lightning rail, and I tell the PC's it will take about 15 rounds before it catches up with them.

The artificer spends a minute using an infusion, and everyone else does a whole lot of nothing. With five rounds to go, the artificer goes out on the balcony of their cart, and fires a magic missile from a wand; everyone else yells at him to not engage it (I guess thinking it might not know which characters to chase, despite the creature having seen them previously).

The silvereye marauder, who has a climb speed, and a decent Jump mod, thanks to its speed and the Run feat, leaps up and climbs up the side of one of the back carts. The PC's tell everyone else to get out of the cart, and start guarding doors (though there are 4 PC's, and 7 entrances to the passenger cart). One of the PC's sees the construct leap from the rear cart's roof onto the roof of their own cart...

The next round the construct leaps down onto a balcony of their cart and smash out the window. At this point the PC's were spread out around the cramped passenger cart, and they move toward the point of entry, two of them not quite getting there. The marauder leaps through the window, then hits the two closest PC's with its 3d8 breath weapon. The artificer gets in some good hits over the next few rounds with some construct-damaging infusions, and takes some damage from the marauder's silver-flaming bite, and a claw attack, as does the Killoren Monk 2/Druid 4.

After a few rounds of the rogue and crusader doing nothing (due to the tight quarters), the artificer and monk/druid start 5-foot stepping back to make room for the other PC's, earning another breath weapon attack; the marauder allows them to move back. They move back again, beyond a "T" intersection of the hallways, so everyone could reach the marauder were it to stop in the intersection. The crusader and rogue don't ready actions, they instead delay.

The Silvereye Marauder, being a leonine form of construct, has pounce. The artificer and monk/druid have now moved back enough for the silvereye marauder to charge, and he has a clear path to them both. I roll randomly to determine which one he attacks. He pounces upon the Monk/Druid, who had taken maybe 6 damage by this point. All five* attacks hit. The third attack drops him unconscious, and the fourth one kills him. *I don't even roll the last attack.

Silvereye Marauders only have an Intelligence of 2, so it seemed perfectly logical for all the attacks of the pounce to be directed at the same target. Sometimes the dice (plus poor tactics of the party as a whole) just lead to character death. The player was very bummed, proclaiming that he had no other character ideas he wanted to play (despite my repeated comments over the last four years that monks are terrible, he loves monks of some variety...) The artificer will be getting him raised, but he's still pissed about the lost level.

The fight with the silvereye marauder continued for another few rounds, including the rogue attempting to Tumble through the marauder's space, failing the check, and getting Improved Grabbed as part of the AoO. He laughed that this might end up being a TPK. The artificer's construct-damaging infusions saved the day, though. Only one dead PC this time.

Just for reference, the Silvereye Marauder is CR 8 (normally 9 HD; I advanced it to 12, but that's still CR 8 ), and the party was level 6. But, this was the only encounter for the whole day.

So, yeah, PC death happens. If poor tactics are employed, PC death is more probable. I only feel a little bad about it.

Sewercop

2015-02-19, 05:21 PM

Jack_Simth

2015-02-19, 05:59 PM

How did the giants know the wizard was casting the spells in the first place?

Frost giants dont have spellcraft or any idea of how to spot a caster, I can see why a flying thing that has no armor and does no visible damage are more important than things that do damage to them. That is my irritation often for DMs that target casters for no reason.
In this specific instance:
Per the Fireball (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm) spell: "You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. (An early impact results in an early detonation.)"

It's not exactly a low-profile spell.

In general:
D&D is a game with magic. If you look at the population tables for random cities in the DMG, casters are common enough that most people will have met several. Something goes boom for no reason? You look for the guy who was just shouting and wiggling his fingers (verbal components specifically require that the caster be able to speak in a strong voice). Casting provokes AoO's by default. You're concentrating fairly heavily and obviously on what you're doing when you cast a spell. Basics of this level are going to be known by anyone who's encountered a caster. You want to do some misdirection with an illusion while you've got Greater Invisibility and are making use of Silent Spell? That's fine. I'm happy to roll with that if you do it well. You drop a Stinking Cloud and expect your enemies to have no idea where it came from for no other reason than because they don't have Spellcraft? That'll work OK with dumb animals (although they might go after you anyway as you probably look smaller and sickly by comparison to the BSF), but anything with an Int score above 6? Not in my game.

Troacctid

2015-02-19, 06:06 PM

This sort of occurrence is what I don't like about 3.5's death rules. It's too easy to insta-gib a player at dramatically unsatisfying moments. I prefer the system in 4th or 5th edition where unless you get taken down to your negative max HP, you at least get to make special saving throws to avoid dying.

Rijan_Sai

2015-02-19, 06:09 PM

Gurifu

2015-02-19, 06:24 PM

Killing player characters is 100% fine, as long as you're roleplaying the monsters appropriately (a pack of wolves isn't going to dive the wizard; a disorganized mob of orcs isn't going to focus fire), giving the party ECL-appropriate baddies or the opportunity and threat assessment needed to avoid overleveled enemies, and playing by the rules1.

...Especially in DnD. Death isn't death, it's a 7000 gp fine (Raise Dead and two Restorations), provided you can get the body back and are on decent terms with the local clergy (or have a CL9+ divine caster of your own). 7000gp shouldn't be a serious problem past level 5 or so. Remind your party that death is not the end. Many people don't know this, or may have forgotten in the heat of the moment.

If possible, take them aside after completing the encounter to describe their experiences as a temporary denizen of the Outer Planes. Death can be a roleplaying opportunity. Maybe your character witnesses a prophetic vision that will have significance to the plot, or a religious character gets to meet her gods.

1 - What makes sense, and what the rules say, often disagree, especially where the durability of characters is concerned. The level 10 Barbarian who tries to jump a hundred-foot canyon, fails, and plummets, does not die no matter how much sense it makes to you. He takes 10d6 falling damage and wastes a few turns climbing back up again.

Jack_Simth

2015-02-19, 06:29 PM

...Especially in DnD. Death isn't death, it's a 7000 gp fine (Raise Dead and two Restorations), Restoration in 3.X does not restore levels lost from death (explicitly). Restoration in Pathfinder, however, does. Easy to get confused.

Sewercop

2015-02-19, 06:29 PM

Troacctid

2015-02-19, 06:36 PM

The word streaks have different meanings, a couple of them plausible here.
The wizard waving and speaking words? commands and pointers for all they know
Spellcraft is trained only

the pebble so small they prob wouldnt see it, not to mention it happens in an instant.

I dont care what people say, things like that are a big change of the game rules. You need to tell the player straight up before it happens it can happen.

So can my wizard use trained only skills now or what? pfffft

Just because they don't know a fireball from an energy ball, delayed blast fireball, or energy substitution electrical storm doesn't mean they can't see you throwing a glowing orb that explodes into a giant ball of fire.

Jack_Simth

2015-02-19, 06:49 PM

The word streaks have different meanings, a couple of them plausible here.
The wizard waving and speaking words? commands and pointers for all they know
Spellcraft is trained only

the pebble so small they prob wouldnt see it, not to mention it happens in an instant.

I dont care what people say, things like that are a big change of the game rules. You need to tell the player straight up before it happens it can happen.

So can my wizard use trained only skills now or what? pfffft
So would it be fair, then, to require a Martial Lore check from your wizard to recognize that the pointy wooden thing sticking out of your chest came from that guy holding the funny stick with a string attached?

Sewercop

2015-02-19, 07:07 PM

LTwerewolf

2015-02-19, 09:10 PM

Either Sewercop is a troll, or is one of those people that abuse the rules as hard as they can. Bad news for you buddy. Spellcraft is not for identifying that a spell is being cast, it's for identifying the specific spell being cast. Show us any rule that says differently.

Jack_Simth

2015-02-19, 10:28 PM

As far as i know martial lore are for stances and manuvers?
Please show me the rules for the bow and arrow :D
Sure. Just as soon as you show me where it explicitly states that you need Spellcraft to know that there's magic about (as opposed to fully identifying the spell).

Blackhawk748

2015-02-19, 10:58 PM

I've done it once, but the Player asked me to do it, so i thought it was ok. Also it helped that he died like a total badass leading a massive army of Wolves of all types, from Dire to Winter, (he was a "Wolf King" i think Beastmaster was involved) against a hive of Formians that had already chased the party out. He had the party heal him up as best as they could, called for his trusty Dire Wolf, and charged headlong into a massive Formian hive. The party wanted to help, but realized they couldnt as they were all pretty much spent. Then they heard the laughing. Among the howls and the snarls they heard an almost deranged, bloodthirsty laugh. (it helped that the Player in question could do a really good berserker laugh) After that, they say the bodies flying. Formian body parts where being launched into the air as if they were in a blender, and more and more Formians threw themselves into that blender. Eventually he was buried in a pile of insectoid bodies, the queens own guard having died trying to stop the Wolf King.

The Player in question was leaving for college and he wanted an awesome epilogue for his character, i was happy to oblige. Otherwise my NPCs fight as intelligently as they should for their Int and training. Obviously Kobolds and Goblins will fight smarter than Orcs, but they all understand "stab the guy in the bathrobe!!". Seriously mages are a fairly common thing in most settings, as such most enemies will try to "gank the mage", also the party does this too. Other than that, if the Fighter suddenly drops 4 enemies in rapid succession he will probably be targeted.

Oneris

2015-02-19, 11:05 PM

It also comes down to the difference between implicit and eplicit magical effects. You could have
1. That person said strange words and pointed at my friend. Flame shot out of his finger and roasted my friend's head. That person is directly responsible for my friend's death and needs to be killed.
Or
2. That person said strange words and waved his arms in no direction in particular. My friend's head exploded in fire. It is coincidental that these events happened in sequence and does not imply one caused the other.

Oko and Qailee

2015-02-19, 11:06 PM

It would make sense for them to start fighting the rest of the opposing force after dropping the wizard, because, setting aside the whole abstraction of combat rules for a moment, any additional rocks would be a waste and liable to miss unless they were particularly good at leading their shots. And they'd want to get over to where he fell ASAP to make sure no parts of the body are recoverable.

Setting aside the whole abstraction of combat rules, the giants wouldn't throw one rock at a time wait for a rock to land and then throw the next one.

Oneris

2015-02-19, 11:11 PM

Setting aside the whole abstraction of combat rules, the giants wouldn't throw one rock at a time wait for a rock to land and then throw the next one.

But they would at least stagger the throwing speed a little to account for one boulder not interfering with another's trajectory.

BowStreetRunner

2015-02-19, 11:14 PM

But they would at least stagger the throwing speed a little to account for one boulder not interfering with another's trajectory.

I spent a half-hour tonight down at the YMCA watching kids shoot hoops while waiting for my daughter's dance class to get out. It was funny how often a bunch of kids shot at the same time and their balls ricocheted off of one another instead of going in the hoop. So I guess it depends on how well trained and coordinated the giants are who are throwing the boulders.

georgie_leech

2015-02-19, 11:22 PM

The word streaks have different meanings, a couple of them plausible here.
The wizard waving and speaking words? commands and pointers for all they know
Spellcraft is trained only

the pebble so small they prob wouldnt see it, not to mention it happens in an instant.

I dont care what people say, things like that are a big change of the game rules. You need to tell the player straight up before it happens it can happen.

So can my wizard use trained only skills now or what? pfffft

Note that Spellcraft is only used to identify the spell being cast, not that it's a spell. The giants might not know if it was Fireball or Delayed Blast Fireball or Greg's Giant Ganker or whatever, but they wouldn't need a check to notice obvious combat consequences any more than a PC would need to make a Spot Check to notice the friend he was fighting beside is now headless.

Deophaun

2015-02-19, 11:55 PM

This is seems unfair, you don't know which attack landed in which order, so you don't know how to even correctly narrate the attack. The concept of the turn is a foundation of D&D and all RPGs with even a hint of tactical combat. In any semblance of reality, actions happen, then resolve in a logical order. This is why games like 3.5 have initiative (and even older editions of D&D had a time scale that things happened in), so that once one action resolves, new possibilities lie before you. That's what makes good stories, seeing the consequences of actions, but no, you decided that the WIzard needed to die (because four attacks from giants are going to kill any wizard), and that's what happened. There's nothing interesting there.
This is basically all wrong. The turn structure exists so the game can proceed in an orderly manner, because everyone trying to go at the same time breeds confusion. However, that's not what's going on in the game world. The rules explicitly state that turns are an abstraction, and in the game reality everything in the round is occurring simultaneously.

What the DM did is far more faithful to a "realistic" situation: Giants see wizard take out their buddies, they all start throwing rocks, not bothering to wait to see if the one their buddy threw is going to knock the threat out before acting. And it's not even breaking the rules: if the giants are so threatened by the wizard that they no long plan all their moves to apply damage as efficiently as possible to the opposing party, the turn order supports that just fine. The DM rolling four attacks simultaneously is just a time-efficient means of doing it.

Malroth

2015-02-20, 02:10 AM

example 1)
a slight case of an over CRed encounter combined with a lucky crit on a low HP character.A somewhat clumsy encounter but definately in character decision for a bunch of frost giants who saw their friends roasted.

Example 2) A massively over Cred encounter that was pretty much guaranteed death unless he made the perfect tacical decison on the first round and he had no way of knowing what the correct action was, AOE crowd control might work but readied actions, mage slayer, improved trip and grapples are all level appropiate fighter counters, Running might work but he'd eat at least 4 AOO's as well as Trips, charges, and the possibility of enhanced movement speed. Attempt to talk things out might work but usually city guards are ones of the ones who help rescue the kidnap victims not attack the investigators, so one must assume that they are in on the kidnapping in this case.

Example 3) This was fair, letting a PC create his own class usually asks for trouble

Example 4) A little bit to hasty on the attack for sucessful bandits or military trained marauders but possibly in character for cultists or drug addicts. The Featherfall ring stopping him right in the sarlac teeth was a jerk move.

Example 5) 30 lv 8 troops is a cr 18 encounter there's no way a lv 8 PC is standing up to that kind of concentrated firepower.

So on the whole you are making tactical decisions that do make sense for the most part but you're dropping the PC's in way more danger than the book assumes is possible first.

Coidzor

2015-02-20, 02:12 AM

So would it be fair, then, to require a Martial Lore check from your wizard to recognize that the pointy wooden thing sticking out of your chest came from that guy holding the funny stick with a string attached?

Nah, but for something the size of a pea? Even a glowing one(though that depends on how brightly glowing the DM rules it), that's pretty darned small to a Giant.

I'd say the funny gestures from somatic components of casting the spell would be more likely to be more obvious than the pea-sized projectile.

HammeredWharf

2015-02-20, 03:54 AM

f you live in a word with magic and a little flying guy comes over, starts doing weird gestures and things explode, I think it's safe to assume he did it. However, the giants could probably be tricked by a fighter doing weird gestures and an invisible wizard casting things in the background.

Scorponok

2015-02-20, 04:00 AM

In order to illustrate my point, here's an example. The first attack crits, the Wizard is KO'ed but not dead (yet), he falls and let's assume that he survives (though, he might not). There is now a great story moment set up, here and an interesting dilemma for the Giants, the Wizard's been neutralized for now, but he still has friends, do you go kill the incapacitated Wizard (assuming he didn't land behind an object that obstructs their vision, which might create interesting consequences of it's own) or go after his still functioning friends? This creates a incredibly different scenario, creates tension, still has definite consequences for the Wizard (he's not getting off scott free for a bad plan) but the player now has an investment in what happens next, and is probably much happier.

I really like how you've explained things here, and though I disagree with a lot of your other comments, you've at least offered a different perspective and given me something to think about. Thanks. :)

As for Wizard in 1st example, he did NOT fly 800+ feet up in the air. He was only about 30 feet up. If a player dies, I also offer them the option of them only being "knocked out" if they really feel they want to keep their character. But most of the time, the players at my table don't like that, and either want to have their character stay dead or have the party do a Resurrection-type quest. (Only one player has asked me to bring his character back to life - and I did it.)

Another sort of amusing thing to mention was just prior to the battle with the frost giants, they had made a temporary alliance with a mature adult white dragon named Krystalydia to get rid of these giants together. The deal was, she would help them get rid of the frost giants, and when it came time to liberate the local coastal city of Stormfrost from the pirate rulers, they would install one of her sorceress leaders (Mina) as the new regent of the city.

The strategy was that she would carry them on an empty boat a few miles away from where the giants were last seen, the PCs would walk in and negotiate with the giants, telling them they had to leave the country, and when they didn't, she and her two most powerful sorceresses (Mina and Clarice) would swoop in and lay waste to the giants from behind. THEN the PCs would join the battle once the giants had their attention on her.

The player in question did not think my history of Elves was to his liking, so he basically wrote his old character out of the campaign the previous session, just telling me he didn't want his character to exist at all in my campaign, and he spent "considerable time" coming up with a wizard. On joining the party, his wizard kept telling the group it was a bad idea to negotiate with Krystalydia, because she was running a "Prosperity Club" that the party had, a couple of weeks prior, found out was really just one giant ponzi scheme - and that it was a bad idea to go into this battle against 6 frost giants and their 20+ minions. But he reluctantly went with his new party members.

On arriving, they began to negotiate with the giants after casting buffs on themselves a few minutes before. The arcane trickster cast an invisibility on himself and starts to sneak in behind the giants. AND SUDDENLY, off goes three fireballs, killing two giants and several ogres - who the PCs now realize were illusions - and the wizard is now 30 ft. in the air. No dragon in the sky, no following the plan that they had agreed to. The dragon rolled low on her initiative, and I'm sure she would've been as surprised as anyone that a bunch of fireballs went off without her being in the fight first. So the giants all turned to throw boulders at the guy in the pajamas, not seeing the bigger threat behind them and now focusing on the PCs. As a result, another PC died.

The rest of the battle went as well as you could hope. Krystalydia killed two of the giants while the rest of the party dealt with the northern barbarians, their spellcasting girlfriends, and the other two giants. Once half the giants were eliminated, the northern sorceresses turned off their illusions, surrendered and told the party they were forced into slavery and had to serve the giants. There were a bunch of magic weapons the giants were carrying, and after they were killed, Krystalydia told the PCs they could keep the weapons, but she would like to take care of the low level sorceresses, who were apparently far from home and had no way back. AND THE PARTY AGREED!

Now the campaign is wrapping up, and the party had talked about getting rid of Krystalydia, who has grown richer and more corrupt by the day. The problem now is that she convinced the 12 or so northern sorceresses to join her party, and through her training, they have become more powerful. I am really not sure if they will be able to beat the dragon head to head at this point.

SinsI

2015-02-20, 06:30 AM

Maybe you should require a Spot check to determine who attacked whom at range, especially if it wasn't in your immediate vicinity?
If those Giants looked away from you (at the Fireball frying their fallen comrades), they are distracted, so you get to Hide.

Killer Angel

2015-02-20, 07:37 AM

I'm a little late, but

Seems fine. A character demonstrated they were a higher magnitude threat and the enemy acted accordingly in attempting to take him out. They have a significant enough intelligence score to have formulated the plan and made the tactical decision. Knowing this is a world of healing they opted for overkill rather than taking the chances of him getting back up. Finishing a downed opponent isn't exactly unheard of.

Pretty much. Of course, you can also reason in a slightly different way: "yes, this is a world of healing, but I could wait just a little second: if my companions kill the flying dude, i can use my attack against an opponent that is still alive and kicking".

Gurifu

2015-02-20, 02:59 PM

Thurbane

2015-02-20, 04:27 PM

Sometimes as a DM, you have to make tough calls.

If the bad guys have managed to get off a successful Hold Person on a party member, and one of them is next to him with a scythe, a coup-de-grace make sense. But at low levels (before easy access to Raise Dead etc.), it's a bit of a rough way to lose your favourite PC...

Coidzor

2015-02-20, 04:58 PM

Now the campaign is wrapping up, and the party had talked about getting rid of Krystalydia, who has grown richer and more corrupt by the day. The problem now is that she convinced the 12 or so northern sorceresses to join her party, and through her training, they have become more powerful. I am really not sure if they will be able to beat the dragon head to head at this point.

Decide to react differently (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) seems relevant both to you and to your players.

Also, don't deliberately set up campaign enders to be TPKs. :smallconfused: Deciding on that course of action isn't "doing what makes sense" or "acting reasonably."

Those 12 sorceresses don't have to be as strong as you're thinking and they don't have to be all in one place to focus fire the PCs to death, either.

Sometimes as a DM, you have to make tough calls.

If the bad guys have managed to get off a successful Hold Person on a party member, and one of them is next to him with a scythe, a coup-de-grace make sense. But at low levels (before easy access to Raise Dead etc.), it's a bit of a rough way to lose your favourite PC...

That's not a tough call. :smallconfused:

The DM in your scenario deliberately set up a fight where there's a coup-de-gracing scyth-wielder paired with a Hold Person spammer in the first place. Saying they're just doing what comes naturally after all of that setup is a misdirection. :smalltongue:

Thurbane

2015-02-20, 05:12 PM

That's not a tough call. :smallconfused:

The DM in your scenario deliberately set up a fight where there's a coup-de-gracing scyth-wielder paired with a Hold Person spammer in the first place. Saying they're just doing what comes naturally after all of that setup is a misdirection. :smalltongue:

OK, that was an extreme example.

An actual one when I was DMing (2E) was that an enemy Cleric had knocked one of the PCs into negatives, and had to decide whether to move on to attacking another party member, or administering a final blow with his mace to finish the downed PC. Since the party had 3 healing types, and the downed PC would soon be back in the battle, he chose to kill him with a blow from his weapon before moving on...

Coidzor

2015-02-20, 07:02 PM

OK, that was an extreme example.

An actual one when I was DMing (2E) was that an enemy Cleric had knocked one of the PCs into negatives, and had to decide whether to move on to attacking another party member, or administering a final blow with his mace to finish the downed PC. Since the party had 3 healing types, and the downed PC would soon be back in the battle, he chose to kill him with a blow from his weapon before moving on...

That's A decision to make, rather than THE decision to make, though. A character could just as easily conclude that valued creatures would have someone drop what they were doing to try to get them back into the fight, making them vulnerable to the cleric and making the downed creature into bait and a tactical catch-22. Or decide that it's better to use actions to eliminate opponents who can still hurt or even kill them than it is to coup de grace someone already bleeding out.

Brookshw

2015-02-20, 08:30 PM

That's A decision to make, rather than THE decision to make, though. A character could just as easily conclude that valued creatures would have someone drop what they were doing to try to get them back into the fight, making them vulnerable to the cleric and making the downed creature into bait and a tactical catch-22. Or decide that it's better to use actions to eliminate opponents who can still hurt or even kill them than it is to coup de grace someone already bleeding out.

I can't really imagine this being the reaction if the PCs were carrying out the actions.

Thurbane

2015-02-20, 09:05 PM

I can't really imagine this being the reaction if the PCs were carrying out the actions.

Exactly - every party I've been in since 1E, if there is a downed enemy who might be healed by his allies and back in the fight next turn, I'd administer a killing blow ASAP.

Vhaidara

2015-02-20, 09:08 PM

Exactly - every party I've been in since 1E, if there is a downed enemy who might be healed by his allies and back in the fight next turn, I'd administer a killing blow ASAP.

Meanwhile doing this in one of my groups would be more likely to get you yelled at. First because we already dropped that enemy, and second because all of my groups love their prisoners. They almost tried to interrogate a wild animal once. Though to be fair, they had a druid.

Coidzor

2015-02-20, 09:16 PM

I can't really imagine this being the reaction if the PCs were carrying out the actions.

Your imagination and play experience are not my responsibilities, however. :smallconfused:

Plus, you seem to be forgetting that sometimes PCs don't just murderhobo and will take prisoners.

Also, other groups don't bother tracking enemies once they're dropped unless they're noteworthy NPCs.

Finally there are differing concerns based upon what side of the DM screen one is on, the individual making the actual decision, their goals and objectives, and a thousand other little ephemeral things that you can't just simply reduce to "I'm a real DM" vs. "these other guys are all fru-fru carebears" like you seem to be insinuating or setting up to argue here. :smallconfused:

SinsI

2015-02-20, 11:07 PM

3WhiteFox3

2015-02-21, 12:23 AM

I want to say (instead of quoting everyone who responded to me) that many good points were raised, and while I probably would have handled the situation differently as a GM, (from the setup, not necessarily what happened when the player made the decision to nova his opponents). I'll admit, it was a knee-jerk reaction.

However, I do want to point out that I don't like (as a personal style preference) killing PCs in such as sudden manner, not because it 'makes sense' or not but because dead PCs generally aren't very interesting (or fun). While the risk of death should exist to create tension, abruptly dying from a bad decision leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I tend to give players lots of chances to either build drama about a character's death, or give them the chance to have a nondramatic death if that's what they prefer. But I've never bought into the idea that you must punish PCs for making bad tactical decisions, (but I also admit to like using natural reactions to bad tactics, just that the given example went a bit too far in my opinion). Sometimes, I'll let a bad tactic have consequences, but not to teach the players to always make safe decisions, but to increase tension and drama.

The one thing that frustrates me most about players who are too used to the old-style approach of DMing that says to play hardball and punish players for making mistakes or trying to do something cool, but potentially unsafe teaches players to play too safely and take the safe route and not the dramatic or flashy one. Drama is created when PCs make mistakes, but if you harshly punish mistakes and give them negative reinforcement (which several of the posters responding to both me and the OP implied) against doing such tactics, you are teaching them to play it safe, when most of the time in fiction, rule of cool beats absolute safety. (I say this because I know players who have had bad experiences with punishing, playstyles that were intended to teach PCs to not take certain actions, those players often make few to no mistakes, always carefully plotting and calculating everything instead of really getting into the mood of the game or roleplaying their character's flaws (if they even have any, which they probably don't, because flaws can kill.)

tldr; I personally would rather encourage players to have fun and make dumb decisions, if such would encourage drama, rather than always make the safe choice. I don't see myself as someone who has to teach anyone anything (unless I'm trying to impart an idea or ask some sort of philosophical question). I'll admit, I'm not in anyway a hardcore GM (if that makes me a panzy, so be it).

I can't really imagine this being the reaction if the PCs were carrying out the actions.

Interestingly enough, most groups I've DMed for tend to keep enemies alive if at all possible. Dead people can't tell you anything about what's going on, they can occasionally be reasoned with and killing wantonly tends to make people more hostile to you (in some of my fights, if a PC coup-de-graces an opponent, the other members of the group will go out of their way to attack that PC in retaliation for their teammate). So this is something entirely up to player preference (as well as how the GM sets up situations, there are lots of ways for GMs to subtly encourage certain types of behavior in his games).

Scorponok

2015-02-21, 01:31 AM

I have to question the appropriateness of "a bunch of level 8 fighters" being something that just shows up. A level 8 fighter is serious bad news - an infamous pirate captain, a warlord, a heroic knight, a veteran adventurer, the captain of the king's guard... Anything over 4 hit dice is way too badass for even the most badass of marauders. 8 HD is reasonable for the bandit leader, but even then he should probably be a CR6-7 Warrior 4/Expert 4, not a Fighter 8.

Judging from what you've said, it was reasonable for a level 8 adventurer to assume that he could take on a gang by himself, even without using his high-level spell slots.

The players were slightly above level-10 at the time, and the level-8 fighters are considered lieutenants of armies in my campaign. I agree with what you say, but the players got tired of destroying level-2 mooks with level-4 squad leader types and wanted something more challenging, so I raised the levels of regular soldiers to 4 and the squad leaders to 8. That example had 6 or 7 level-10+ PCs rescuing the prisoner. Four level-8 enemies (2 melee, 2 casters) should be, if not a cakewalk, an appropriate encounter.

Scorponok

2015-02-21, 01:51 AM

Decide to react differently (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) seems relevant both to you and to your players.

Also, don't deliberately set up campaign enders to be TPKs. :smallconfused: Deciding on that course of action isn't "doing what makes sense" or "acting reasonably."

Those 12 sorceresses don't have to be as strong as you're thinking and they don't have to be all in one place to focus fire the PCs to death, either.

That's true. If the players came up with a plan to divide and conquer to make each fight more reasonable and worked their way up to fighting the dragon, that would be cool. But if they make the decision to run headlong into a dragon den with 20+ casters working for her, I don't feel as a DM I need to change what would reasonably happen in those circumstances.

Barstro

2015-02-21, 05:00 AM

But if they make the decision to run headlong into a dragon den with 20+ casters working for her, I don't feel as a DM I need to change what would reasonably happen in those circumstances.

Players should learn that not everything needs to be, or even can be, fought.

I understand the arguments here about having (typically evil or at best neutral) enemies act in the non-strategic and shockingly sympathetic way of letting PCs live. Maybe it's because we are used to foolish Hollywood villains who are more than happy to murder everyone around them without a thought but feel a need to drag things out with the hero and do everything possible to be defeated by said hero.

Personally, I dislike enemies who fight illogically. Low intelligence/wisdom creatures should attack the nearest perceived threat, high ones should act strategically, swarms should usually attack whatever is closest. On the other side, PCs should act with logic and not be covered with a +12 DM shield of Death-Block.

If the Players are choosing to get into a fight that is to hard, make sure they have all the information that the PCs would have (those guys are in a martial arts stance that you recognise as something you hope to achieve in four more levels, you notice the aura of a very high level spell surrounding the leader, you are smarter than a squirrel and know you cannot win this fight straight up).

By all means, give the Players every chance to keep the PCs alive, but poor decisions and unlucky dice still need to have a cost.

Feint's End

2015-02-21, 06:55 AM

atemu1234

2015-02-21, 02:00 PM

I'm sorry, but players don't- shouldn't- tell the DM he should attack someone else because it hurts their character. If it makes sense in combat, then they don't have a leg to stand on.

BowStreetRunner

2015-02-21, 10:00 PM

I'm sorry, but players don't- shouldn't- tell the DM he should attack someone else because it hurts their character. If it makes sense in combat, then they don't have a leg to stand on.

What, precisely, does the average player know about what does and does not make sense in combat? The average player is not a two-tour war veteran, not a ranked chess master, and may very well have far less tactical or strategic sense than the DM. Does that mean that their character cannot be smart enough to recognize the folly of their position?

I will reiterate the point I made before. This is where a good DM would point out to the players what the PCs might realize that their players do not see. If the DM does what makes sense in combat and his players aren't skilled enough to handle the situation appropriately, then the DM runs a risk of violating the first rule of RPGs - have fun!

If you don't buy my argument, go find someone who is tactically and strategically far superior to you in every way and let them play DM for a few sessions without allowing them to help the players in any way. Should be interesting... :smallbiggrin:

atemu1234

2015-02-21, 10:17 PM

What, precisely, does the average player know about what does and does not make sense in combat? The average player is not a two-tour war veteran, not a ranked chess master, and may very well have far less tactical or strategic sense than the DM. Does that mean that their character cannot be smart enough to recognize the folly of their position?

I will reiterate the point I made before. This is where a good DM would point out to the players what the PCs might realize that their players do not see. If the DM does what makes sense in combat and his players aren't skilled enough to handle the situation appropriately, then the DM runs a risk of violating the first rule of RPGs - have fun!

If you don't buy my argument, go find someone who is tactically and strategically far superior to you in every way and let them play DM for a few sessions without allowing them to help the players in any way. Should be interesting... :smallbiggrin:

Hey, if my players read the art of war, I'd be cool with it. I'm just against the players arguing against monsters dropping the flying death machine like the Mic.

goto124

2015-02-22, 12:04 AM

Do people roll new characters and continue playing in the same campaign?

Darth Ultron

2015-02-22, 01:13 AM

Do people roll new characters and continue playing in the same campaign?

If you run a game with character death, it's best to have a player bring at least three characters to the game. One of my groups does the three character idea, for example. Each player has three characters, and all the characters know each other. A player can only use a single character at a time. Most players rotate through their three characters. It's a great way to not get bored with one character. And if one dies, there are two that can come into the game.

LTwerewolf

2015-02-22, 02:08 AM

What, precisely, does the average player know about what does and does not make sense in combat? The average player is not a two-tour war veteran, not a ranked chess master, and may very well have far less tactical or strategic sense than the DM. Does that mean that their character cannot be smart enough to recognize the folly of their position?

I will reiterate the point I made before. This is where a good DM would point out to the players what the PCs might realize that their players do not see. If the DM does what makes sense in combat and his players aren't skilled enough to handle the situation appropriately, then the DM runs a risk of violating the first rule of RPGs - have fun!

If you don't buy my argument, go find someone who is tactically and strategically far superior to you in every way and let them play DM for a few sessions without allowing them to help the players in any way. Should be interesting... :smallbiggrin:

Being a multi-tour war veteran, when I DM and see a player make a particularly boneheaded move, I ask them "are you sure you want to do that?" Sometimes I ask this when it's not particularly boneheaded and it's a good idea to do. The thing though is it always gets them to rethink what they could do differently and nearly always ends with them choosing to do the more intelligent thing. I also allow them to ask questions outside of the game about tactics, as long as it's not specific to a scenario in the game. Over time, they have gotten much better at it.