The Coward Always Survives - Would you see this as a problem?

[Dr TPK]

I run a medium lethality game. It means that most of the encounters are fairly easy, but some can kill a character (never two).

One of the players has a super-cowardly PC. It's a true neutral battle sorcerer who always stays behind others and has maximized his own security (very effectively too). His selfishness is the main cause why other characters die, but this character almost never even receives a scratch.

I'm annoyed by this, but I don't think I can say anything. There's basically nothing wrong with this, but the fact that all other PCs are exposed expect his character somehow offends my sense of justice. His character also brings up the APL so much that the CRs get tough. Other PCs get eaten while his battle sorcerer buffs himself like crazy and maybe even flies away.

Any thoughts?

[FocusWolf413]

Drop an anti magic field or reciprocal gyre on him. Reciprocal gyre is a good way to put a buff-heavy caster in his place. The CA version does d6 damage per spell level of buffs. That's pretty rough for a squishy guy.

[nedz]

Does he contribute to the fighting at all ?
After all Offence > Defence in 3.5

How about the other players ?
Are they too gung ho - do they take too many risks ?

[Segev]

Yeah, I'm also curious how his cowardice is actively increasing the danger to the others. Could you elaborate on that, please?

[Dr TPK]

Yeah, I'm also curious how his cowardice is actively increasing the danger to the others. Could you elaborate on that, please?

Naturally, I will explain.

1. Any threat appears.
2. The coward stays behind others or goes behind other while buffing himself and trying to make himself invulnerable. Other PCs actually fight the monster, such as in melee or casting/firing from distance (but the coward is still always somewhere safe).
3. The threat might kill one of the PCs, most likely a frontline fighter. There's always a frontline fighter, or someone pushed into that trole.
4. The PCs - with the coward's help - defeat the threat.

[Kanthalion]

I don't really see a problem unless the other players are starting to resent it. He has a character concept and he's role playing it.

As a DM, I've really had to work a lot at getting over my personal hangups. If everyone is having fun, even if it isn't necessarily what you would like, don't worry that this one guy never seems to die.

[icefractal]

A couple things:


His character also brings up the APL so much that the CRs get tough. Other PCs get eaten while his battle sorcerer buffs himself like crazy and maybe even flies away.Unless this is for organized play, you're under no compulsion to raise the CR of enemies for having a non-contributing party member around. Base the CRs off the rest of the party, maybe half-count him since he does sometimes contribute.


I run a medium lethality game. It means that most of the encounters are fairly easy, but some can kill a character (never two).Is this just the general result of said encounters, or is it something you actively pursue? That is, do you intentionally try to have one PC die, and then go easier after that? If so, his behavior is reasonable - he knows there must be a 'sacrifice', and chooses not to be it.

If not, and he's the one making things deadlier with his behavior, then it depends on what the relationship of the party to each-other is. Do the rest of the PCs need to work with him? Could they refuse to give him a full share of treasure if he doesn't contribute to battle? Keep in mind that "blasting things from a safe distance" is still contributing plenty. But spending the majority of time defensively buffing only yourself wouldn't be. Pointing this out might be enough.

If it's a case where the PCs are bound together and wouldn't do that, then you need OOC action. First, ask the other players if this bothers them. If it does, ask him to either change characters or start playing this character in a less selfish way.

[Segev]

Given that the party knows his tactics, it would seem wiser to adjust to accommodate them if he's that necessary to their victory. Have fall-backs planned, or better still, get him to throw up a hold-the-line effect (like a wall of force or something) behind which the sorcerer can buff himself and the front line fighters.

[Geddy2112]

It is not cowardice to not rush headlong into danger and risk death, it is common sense. If the rest of the party wants to rush into danger, I don't see any problem with being level headed and standing back. As a caster, this character probably lacks melee ability and any real defense, making them a squishy target. The caster almost always stands in the back during most combats.

If the rest of the party does not mind, then no problem. If they say something, talk with the player. If he is back, he does not need those buffs for himself-he could buff the frontliners, or contribute more effectively by using summons/blasting/battlefield control or targeted save or bad thing spells. I see the point of staying back and being cautious, but running is probably not something the player should consider unless things look really bad for the party, normally once 50% or more of the party is down.

[Triskavanski]

I've also played a Battle Sorcerer in a game that I think would be considered "cowardly." Rather than charge into battle hollering and yelling and screaming.. I stay back and cast the shield spell. Then I begin to progress forward with one movement action/one total defense action, unless I can get into reach of the enemy, then I switch to defensive fighting.

The last few combats, there was a few of us (3), and I was the only moving rather slowly through, buffing my AC to a point the enemies had to roll a nat 20 to hit me.

The two that were with me dropped, unconscious, as I continued to keep moving, making sure to keep my defenses up. I don't know why they never learned from what I was doing though.. The two quickly died the next combat as I continued to just wade through everything.

[Spore]

Paranoid and coward characters are good but there should be a reason in his backstory onto why he is this way (yet continues adventuring). Also he is the caster. And he is the mainstay in a powerful group; ddue to being the only one survivine the group is perceived as "his" to the outside forces. There is no reason why you shouldn't get some Assassins (the concept not the class) to kill his behind. Maybe he is not integral to the party's success but maybe the villain could hope to disband the party by killing its head. Being the longest living member possibly gives him an edge on story details, which in turn increases his value to the party.

Also I prefer to play the caster support where I regularly have witnessed a reversal of your situation. I used my first two turns to buff the crap out of the group so naturally the highly trained special forces unit surrounded my oracle (PF) forcing me to cast Sanctuary defensively and pray. High AC and health was always an important point in my preparations.

[ComaVision]

That's just a pretty likely outcome when you have frontliners. It stands to reason that the guy sticking his neck out is most likely to be killed.

It's less cowardly and more common sense to stay out of the way if you have less AC and a smaller HP pool.

As a DM in a medium lethality game myself, sometimes there are characters less likely to be killed and that's OK. Right now, I have a Tibbit Psion in my group and most enemies can't even identify the cat as a threat so she's mostly been ignored.

[Telonius]

It sounds like there are a couple of simultaneous problems:

- Pointy Hat has buckets of time to buff himself before getting into the fray.
- The frontliners are not eliminating the major threats within a few rounds.
- The enemies are not recognizing Pointy Hat as a threat until it's too late.
- The enemies don't have a counter to the buffs Pointy Hat is setting up.

Are these random encounters, or do the enemies have some reason to know the party is coming? If they have any information that there's a Sorcerer on the way, they should be trying to ignore the meatshields and concentrate fire.

Reciporcal Gyre is a good suggestion. Even something as simple as Silence can really put a cramp in his style. If all else fails, Dimension Hop, Anklets of Translocation, or even swapping out the bad guys' feats for the Mage Slayer line can make him think twice about hanging back. Or, give him a reason to hustle. "Countdown" style traps can do that - the bridge behind them is rapidly crumbling, the poison spikes are advancing.

[AMFV]

I think surviving when your friends die is the downside of cowardice, you have to live with that. But you do survive. Sometimes surviving is worse.

[Red Fel]

I don't really see a problem unless the other players are starting to resent it. He has a character concept and he's role playing it.

As a DM, I've really had to work a lot at getting over my personal hangups. If everyone is having fun, even if it isn't necessarily what you would like, don't worry that this one guy never seems to die.

This. He has laid out his combat methodology. It shouldn't be a surprise to the other players. Moreover, it shouldn't be a surprise to the characters (at least, the ones who survive), who have seen it in action.

If the characters are frustrated, they're within rights to call his character out on it, and if pushed, to ditch him.

If the players are frustrated, they're within rights to call the player out on it, and complain about how he lets other characters die while making his own character invulnerable.

If nobody complains, then you getting annoyed with this pattern is, frankly, tough. You're not a player, you're the DM. If you really have to say something, you can drop a comment like, "Really, again?" But you don't get to tell him how to play his character, you don't get to tell the rest of them how to organize party combat dynamics. Not your role.

[Deadline]

If nobody complains, then you getting annoyed with this pattern is, frankly, tough. You're not a player, you're the DM. If you really have to say something, you can drop a comment like, "Really, again?" But you don't get to tell him how to play his character, you don't get to tell the rest of them how to organize party combat dynamics. Not your role.

This is all true, but I'd add:

If you aren't having fun running this game, then stop. You are (presumably) under no obligation to run a game for them. This game only works and is sustainable when everyone at the table is having fun.

That said, there's a wealth of information available here if you want to learn how to provide differing challenges to this party. Change things up and see if you can find a way of running that everyone enjoys. For example, you don't have to make replacement characters start at a lower level (which is what I'm guessing is happening based on your "he's raising the APL").

[Flickerdart]

- Pointy Hat has buckets of time to buff himself before getting into the fray.
- The frontliners are not eliminating the major threats within a few rounds.
- The enemies are not recognizing Pointy Hat as a threat until it's too late.
- The enemies don't have a counter to the buffs Pointy Hat is setting up.

It seems like the enemies are recognizing threats just fine - the spellcaster hangs back and doesn't bother them, and the front-liners are trying to kill them. I know who I'd be attacking in that situation.

[nedz]

If this is a problem then it's the party's problem and not the DMs. You can pass comments or even have the bad guys demonstrate better tactics by utilising BC to break up the party and slow them down, but ultimately it's down to the players.

[Kanthalion]

This is all true, but I'd add:

If you aren't having fun running this game, then stop. You are (presumably) under no obligation to run a game for them. This game only works and is sustainable when everyone at the table is having fun.

This is a good reminder. I like to think of my job as the DM to be the "fun facilitator" but if you aren't having fun in that role, maybe it's time to take a break.

[BowStreetRunner]

As a DM, I like to mix things up quite a bit. Never content just to use premade modules and hope the encounters work for the party, I prefer to tailor my encounters a bit to the party's strengths and weaknesses. I will make sure that for each character there are some encounters that play to their strengths and some that play to their weaknesses. I like to give each player a chance to shine occasionally and also create a few situation which make them have to overcome their limitations. Nobody wants to build a character around a particular strategy then never get to employ it. At the same time, whatever trade-offs they employed to make the character should feel real within the game.

I would address the cowardly sorcerer in this same manner. I would make sure that while this strategy works in some encounters there are also encounters where it proves sub-optimal. I'd throw in a couple of encounters that are designed to favor the other PCs (by the time the sorcerer gets buffed the combat is over - just make sure the princess they save gushes over her heroes and dismisses the sorcerer who didn't do anything to help :smallwink:) and a few designed to expose the weaknesses of his strategy (Arcane Ooze is always fun against any caster and I really like the idea of throwing a Warlock against this sorcerer using Voracious Dispelling :smallamused:).

Just try to make it so that all of the encounters don't go the same way for each player. The more diversity the better.

[Jack_Simth]

He hangs around in the back? That's fine. Easy to counter. Suppose we have a 'dungeon' (could be a normal building, really), set up roughly like so:


_________________________________________________
| E D | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |>| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | D E |
_________________________________________________

D = Door
E = Enemy (possible group of Enemies, doesn't specifically matter)
> = Where the party comes into this area.
| or _ = wall
(So I'm not very good at drawing in ASCII, should get the point across OK, though)
The doors are normally kept closed. However, when fighting starts at either enemy E, the other enemy E comes running to help. It's a short trip, so they arrive the next round.

The squishy guy is in the back. If he was planning on spending more than one round buffing, he's got problems.

[Telonius]

It seems like the enemies are recognizing threats just fine - the spellcaster hangs back and doesn't bother them, and the front-liners are trying to kill them. I know who I'd be attacking in that situation.

I'd be going after the little guy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ebcsowtrU0).

[nedz]

Yeah, there are lots of counters


Dispel magic
Pincer attack
Diversionary attack designed to pull off the front line
Flying enemies
Attacks from underground
Spoiling attacks - to waste resources (i.e. buffs) e.g. Hit and Run.
AoEs
Infiltration (using stealth)

to list just a few.

But you should be throwing this sort of thing at the party anyway.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Primarily it's a problem for the other players and characters.

However, it's a problem if it effects your enjoyment of the game even if they don't have a problem with it. That said, they may well have a problem with it. Role playing games all have a level of social expectation that A. everyone's characters get to play, B. you don't get to tell everyone else what their character can do, and C. everyone shares in the loot. That said, there is a large subset of gamers who actively take advantage of this. Some of them are active backstabbers (the evil and chaotic neutral groupies who steal stuff and kill your character in his sleep to take his stuff). They are fairly clear-cut and easy to spot and are disruptive enough that a lot--I think most people--know to tell the player to knock it off or get lost. There are also wierdos who want to create a bizarre snowflake character without regard for the world or the rest of the group and spend their time play-acting the demented character's stereotypical mental problems. Those are a little harder to spot because there's a fair amount of overlap with good roleplaying of interesting characters and it's sometimes hard to tell the difference or hard to tell if it's disruptive enough to be worth an uncomfortable conversation to end it. Then there's useless gits who while not necessarily otherwise disruptive create characters who can't contribute if their lives depend on it. Again, there's a spectrum for those guys and it's often hard to tell whether the player is doing it on purpose or just has low system mastery and whether it's worth having a conversation.

Based on your description, this guy sounds like a combination of useless git (a bad case) and backstabber (very borderline case, but probably only troublesome because it's combined with useless git). You should talk to the other players and find out if it bothers them. If it does, you all get the unenviable task of talking to the player. If it really doesn't bother them, then you need to decide if you can get over it bothering you.

And either way, you need to get some bad guys with the magic and creativity to keep him from escaping when you inevitably TPK the party because of the useless git in the back. Reciprocal gyre is good. Antimagic field is good. Catching him in a silence and evard's black tentacles and/or fell drain acid fog is good too. (Cast it behind the front liners to block their retreat).

[Tvtyrant]

Use more area effects so he cannot avoid being targetted, seperate the party, or stop trying to center the game around killing player characters. Lower offensive measures, more enemy defenses.

[ericgrau]

The issue comes if his tactics decrease the overall party survivability compared to him contributing offensively. If while looking out for himself he neglects his team. And then his party members might complain that he isn't pulling his own weight as their characters pay the price for his actions while they were helping out the party stopping the foes that he isn't stopping and getting hurt instead of him. I think other player is the way to handle it btw. If the other players don't like what he'd doing then they'll complain. I don't think the DM is the one who needs to bother with this. If the other players don't mind then well the main point of the game is to have fun so then it's no big deal if nobody minds.

[Scorponok]

There's a level 1 spell from Miniatures Handbook called Buzzing Bee that has no save, is a medium range spell, and makes it so he has to make a concentration check with a DC of caster's save DC + level of spell to successfully cast. Depending on his concentration, he might end up with some spell fails. Maybe not a perfect solution, but a cheap low level one. It may not change his behavior, but may make him not as uber-buffed.

You can also come up with a cult that HATES magic users, and will target spellcasters first. :smallbiggrin:

[Spore]

The issue comes if his tactics decrease the overall party survivability compared to him contributing offensively.

Case in point. Still, as much as D&D is a tactics simulator, it is also an RPG. If you want ingame conflict you can also create it in the group. And that can be more fun than anything the DM throws at you.

We had a cowardly rogue archer in our groups before that was simply most effective by hiding for 3/4s of combat and then landing the important sneak attack onto the enemy wizard. This understandably got him flak from the group's frontline fighter who risks his butt for the safety of the group. They used this conflict for roleplaying in the downtime. As a result the rogue who was initially hired to execute the party didn't go through with that plan when the party was completely down and out from an encounter because he saw the virtue and valor he once held.

That being said I think the rogue wouldn't have gone through with that plan because the party offered him a rank of nobility and land but I feel the reasoning not to kill a friend is a stronger one for character progression. Always remember that this is no MMO where DPS (or more abtly DPR) is the be-all and end-all of gaming. Often a well placed strike from within the protection spells is most viable. And this is 3.5. There should be at least 3 prestige class options to be able to share the protection spells with the group.

[Terrador]

I'd see this as a problem, yeah. Success is nice, but if it's not an entertaining success you're fundamentally missing the point. Talk to him about this. If he doesn't listen, ask your players if they're willing to suffer a TPK to teach him a lesson. And if they agree... really go ham. He can be proactive, or he can get wrecked.

[Zanos]

Can you give a specific example of an encounter? As is it just sounds like he's taking a buff round or two at the beginning of combat because spellcasters are typically rather easy to kill without defensive magic. That doesn't seem unusual.

If that doesn't sit well with you, you could turn him towards buffs that can be cast before combat but might be weaker. Stuff with minute or 10 minute per level durations.

[Cedar]

Archers can ready. For instance: 'Shoot if the guy with the funny hat tries to cast'. Have fun with the concentration checks. :smallbiggrin:

Let a lieutenant shout: 'They have a caster, shoot him if he tries something funny!' if you're nice, so it doesn't come as a surprise.

Use some spells against the party. Maybe battlefield control so the wizards can't retreat. Maybe some harmful fogs so they have to move forwards. Etc.

You could also try to give incentives to start with other spells than buffs first. Add a timer, if the enemy has x rounds of unimpeded movement, they break through and stuff like that.

[warmachine]

As others have written, if the other players aren't annoyed, let them have their fun their way. But the DM can sate a sense of justice: have NPCs openly despise the PC. In a violent world, those who don't aid their comrades in trouble in battle are distrusted. Consider Durkon's opinion of Belkar for leaving Vaarsuvius unprotected in battle (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0111.html). Don't bother thinking how NPCs could know about the PC's cowardice, this is D&D and drama trumps logic. Just make sure the player is consciously choosing to be cowardly rather than unaware that his tactics are terrible.

[Dr TPK]

It seems that the consensus here is not to do anything about the situation or do very little, since the players are playing the game, not me. I can respect that. What Red Fel said made a lot of sense. I just want you guys to understand and emphatize the fact that I was triggered when a player created a great character, then it got eaten by a T-Rex when the battle sorcerer was doing his cowardly crap, and now that same player created another melee character. I just facepalmed in silence, alone, when I read the e-mail with his new character attached. I know for a fact that the character will die, but the battle sorcerer will not.

[AMFV]

It seems that the consensus here is not to do anything about the situation or do very little, since the players are playing the game, not me. I can respect that. What Red Fel said made a lot of sense. I just want you guys to understand and emphatize the fact that I was triggered when a player created a great character, then it got eaten by a T-Rex when the battle sorcerer was doing his cowardly crap, and now that same player created another melee character. I just facepalmed in silence, alone, when I read the e-mail with his new character attached. I know for a fact that the character will die, but the battle sorcerer will not.

That sounds like the other character was rushing in where angels were daring to tread. That isn't the sorcerer being cowardly. That's the sorcerer taking adequate time to prepare and surviving on account of it.

[nedz]

That sounds like the other character was rushing in where angels were daring to tread. That isn't the sorcerer being cowardly. That's the sorcerer taking adequate time to prepare and surviving on account of it.

Pretty much what I asked in post 3.

There is a school of thought which says Brave = Foolish => Dead, which whilst not very heroic is a common reaction to old school DMs.

The Sorcerer should take actions to buy time, with BC, rather than buff himself - but that's a tactical problem.

[Segev]

I'd see this as a problem, yeah. Success is nice, but if it's not an entertaining success you're fundamentally missing the point. Talk to him about this. If he doesn't listen, ask your players if they're willing to suffer a TPK to teach him a lesson. And if they agree... really go ham. He can be proactive, or he can get wrecked.This is terrible advice. "You're playing wrong; if you don't take action to get your character killed, I will wipe out the party with an overwhelming encounter to punish you for it," is what this comes across as. It may not be what you (think you) mean, but it's what it sounds like.


It seems that the consensus here is not to do anything about the situation or do very little, since the players are playing the game, not me. I can respect that. What Red Fel said made a lot of sense. I just want you guys to understand and emphatize the fact that I was triggered when a player created a great character, then it got eaten by a T-Rex when the battle sorcerer was doing his cowardly crap, and now that same player created another melee character. I just facepalmed in silence, alone, when I read the e-mail with his new character attached. I know for a fact that the character will die, but the battle sorcerer will not.

I'd like to play a hypothetical game, here. That is, "What if the sorcerer had behaved differently?" What could the sorcerer have done that would have saved the great character that was eaten by the T-Rex? Would that great character have been still at risk of dying, and how much more risk would the sorcerer have been at?

Now, what if that great character had attempted something else? Could he have taken actions that would have made him more likely to survive? Would this have somehow endangered the sorcerer? If so, how (on all accounts)?

We are getting a very limited impression of what's going on in your game, leaving us to make a lot of assumptions about what each character is doing. The way you've described it, from my own experiences in games, it sounds like the sorcerer is taking a round or two to put up defensive magics while the great character's melee PC is charging straight in without a thought. But that's only one possibility. Possibilities that fit your description range from that to the fighter-type setting up a defensive barrier to protect the sorc while he buffs, to the sorcerer actively putting up defenses that pin the fighter-types in an actively disadvantageous position to feed them to the enemy.

In fact, that latter is the kind of thing that the level of ire you're expressing suggests, but that goes beyond "cowardice" if it's an MO and into "active PvP." Which it doesn't really sound like is the issue.


So can you please describe the situation in more detail? If the one that triggered this thread is typical, just describing it (what, precisely, each PC did and how the fight went) will help us be fairer in giving useful advice. Because it may be the sorcerer's player who needs talking-to, it may be the other players who could use tactical advice, it may be your own encounter design which could use tweaking, or it could be any combination of those (or other things that I'm not thinking of). But to help you find a way to improve the game and avoid deaths of PCs you feel are unfairly dying, we need to fully understand not just what you perceive the problem to be, but what the situation is. Because the mechanics of the game can be complex enough that what somebody THINKS is the problem...isn't.

(I have seen more proposed "fixes" for problems which would only exacerbate them because the perceived problem was entirely not what was actually breaking the game, and the "fix" either created new problems, or only exacerbated the REAL problem.)

[Triskavanski]

I really don't see whats wrong here with this player. Other than you're not happy he's not charging monsters.

I mean if he's spending few rounds in the back and buffing himself before going into combat, there isn't really a problem here except the 'great character' player is trying to bum rush a big hungry beast.

It just sounds like one guy goes to get water, while the other tries to river dance on a bonfire. obviously something is going to happen badly to the guy who jumps into the fire.


Now if its "Oh combat starts, Lets bugger out." and he D-doors away from combat and only comes back when its over.. Yeah there is issue there.

[Broutchev]

You could do the ''O so old cliché of evil twins'' have each doppel/twin/refraction/disguise specialist/etc. attack one designed party member, or their own counterpart.

Design your encounter as to block some aspect, I.e. running away, but making the encounter more focused on teamwork. A big bad brute with damage reduction will overcome fighter type, so your great player would probably want to stay clear or just shield the sorcerer instead of going toe to toe until he finish as a glorious kebab. Add to that a rather squishy spell-caster with spell res, and you could be set.

But the real useful advice will be given if you could, as said before give a rundown of what is and what is not.
1-Party level, composition
2-party attitude in detail (running straight than melee until oblivion)
3-Encounter, what are they, how you play them
4-Sorcerer spell list (if he has shield, mage armor and only self-buff, being in your position I would be ticked too)
5-All the crap I forgot
6-Your astrological sign
7-I really wanted to get to seven

Anyhow, as other said, there is solutions, depending on what is going on, but are you the only one pissed, is he all that bad...
Please we need you to help us help you

[u-b]

It would be interesting to know how the sorcerer character and respective player like the idea of having a substantial chance of being killed. I might be playing a sorcerer's advocate here, but I've been in situations like this quite a lot.

Roughly, it goes like this:
1. My guy or gal, whoever (s)he is (a goblin flamethrower guy, a synth summoner, imperial marine sergeant, ...) is useful enough to want to have him around, especially outside of combat, but often in combat too.
2. He is there to live. Otherwise, he is not there. Not always true with the marine sergeant, but "not there" might just as well mean 15 meters aside in the ditch. This intent to survive is clearly stated beforehand.
3. Now the tricky part is what this guy does and what he does not. He absolutely does not lead anyone into any danger they are not going themselves. In fact, he does his reasonable effort to keep everyone safe. But, if people willfully choose to go where they are going to die, it's their problem, isn't it? The tricky part is tricky because not every game offers options about where to go and not every party+DM combination is going to reach a state where nobody is dying and remain hapy in there.

So, you see, heroic characters live short heroic lives, and coward characters live long cowardly lives, and players get what they want, because you wouldn't make a N-th melee character if you did not like how it went with previous N-1.

And any time anybody asks to "One Clairvoyance on there before we go in." or "Tyrannosaurus spotted, Fly everyone NOW!" - well, sure, there you go!

[stanprollyright]

It's either roleplay or bad tactics, neither of which deserved to be punished. Encourage the behavior you do want instead of discouraging the behavior you don't. Don't target him - the more you try to attack him the more you validate his choice to cast defensive buffs and stand in the back. If you do target him once in a while, make sure it's with something that can dispel. Give him a quicken or extend rod, so he spends less time casting. Let the party catch more enemies by surprise so he can buff beforehand. Give him a scroll of Permanency so he never has to cast one of his buffs again. Give the party a Staff of Life, to encourage offense over defense. Throw monsters at them that do reliable area damage (so he's taking damage without being targeted) and have low saves, low touch AC, or element vulnerabilities that he can exploit.

Or maybe just stop intentionally trying to kill your players. Basically, don't be a ****. Don't be passive-aggressive. Don't TPK the party to "teach him a lesson." It's a game. that you play. with your friends. for fun.

[FocusWolf413]

Punishing a player for playing differently than you would is petty. Don't be a b****.

[Telok]

That isn't the sorcerer being cowardly. That's the sorcerer taking adequate time to prepare and surviving on account of it.

Could be. Could be like a guy our group has, every sorcerer he plays (and he mostly plays sorcerers) generally spends the first five rounds of any combat buffing himself. Which is a problem.

After five rounds of combat the enemy mooks have cut off 1/2 the frontliner's HP before dying, the enemy casters have had time to buff while the mooks died, and our cleric type character has been targeted by a couple of control or damage spells. The sorcerer might now have the highest AC and saves from his buffs but the rest of the party has been fighting without arcane support.

What could have happened instead is a Fireball to off 3/4 of the mooks that lets the healthy frontliners engage the enemy casters. A Dispel to debuff the enemy casters and a good wall spell or summons and the fight's over in five rounds.

But we get to go through ten rounds of combat and lose more HP and spells than the challenge normally would use up while the sorcerer spends four spell slots on defensive buffs and four more slots on blasting or countering the casters.

So it can be a problem. The party punches under it's weight and is at serious risk from normal encounters while the sorcerer risks nothing and claims a loot share off the dead party members. Plus it's pushing for the 15 minute adventuring day because the sorcerer won't agree to anything unless he has enough slots for all his buffs for every potential fight.

The very least the guy could do is to summon something on the first round so that the rest of the party isn't left hanging while he misses half the fight.

[Tvtyrant]

The issue comes if his tactics decrease the overall party survivability compared to him contributing offensively. If while looking out for himself he neglects his team. And then his party members might complain that he isn't pulling his own weight as their characters pay the price for his actions while they were helping out the party stopping the foes that he isn't stopping and getting hurt instead of him. I think other player is the way to handle it btw. If the other players don't like what he'd doing then they'll complain. I don't think the DM is the one who needs to bother with this. If the other players don't mind then well the main point of the game is to have fun so then it's no big deal if nobody minds.
I think the underlying issue here is that the OP is a killer DM, and has trained his player to optimize for survival. Notice how the complaibts focus on the player consistently surviving? Optimizing the player to be a better party member will just cause the DM to raise the lethality again.

[ericgrau]

I think the underlying issue here is that the OP is a killer DM, and has trained his player to optimize for survival. Notice how the complaibts focus on the player consistently surviving? Optimizing the player to be a better party member will just cause the DM to raise the lethality again.

Why try to be effective at all if the DM will only make things harder?

The DM could merely be trying to make things difficult, and then a lot of the fun comes from overcoming that. He might also reward good tactics rather than instantly upping the challenge. Or continue to kill players until they learn to do better. Or at that point the players may want greater difficulty, as they may enjoy it. Anything is possible, just like every other DM. It's part of the fun of overcoming a challenging game. Giving up for the meta reason that the DM will only adjust the difficult OTOH kills the fun.

[nedz]

I think the underlying issue here is that the OP is a killer DM, and has trained his player to optimize for survival. Notice how the complaints focus on the player consistently surviving? Optimizing the player to be a better party member will just cause the DM to raise the lethality again.

It's a strong possibility, but it could be a case of the other PCs being Leroys.

I preferred to use the term old school DMs earlier.

Ed:
I also suspect that the monster tactics are quite predictable. The Sorcerer's tactics are easy to counter and would be countered automatically if the DM just mixed up their tactics a bit - without specifically targeting the Sorcerer at all.

[PersonMan]

Don't bother thinking how NPCs could know about the PC's cowardice, this is D&D and drama trumps logic.

I disagree on this. If I'm playing and things that make no sense start to happen, it pulls me out of the game really quickly - at best it'll create an odd distraction, at worst it'll fundamentally damage the idea of influencing the world (because the DM has shown that they don't care about making the world make sense, so how can they be trusted to not do other nonsensical things to keep things "on track?").

[Kanthalion]

I disagree on this. If I'm playing and things that make no sense start to happen, it pulls me out of the game really quickly - at best it'll create an odd distraction, at worst it'll fundamentally damage the idea of influencing the world (because the DM has shown that they don't care about making the world make sense, so how can they be trusted to not do other nonsensical things to keep things "on track?").

I agree. If the monsters started to target me for no logical in-game reason, I'd feel like the DM was cheating. (I'm not talking Spocklogical, I just mean it makes sense in light of the monster's motivations and knowledge.)

[Waazraath]

I understand the OP, it can be annoying when a partymember does nothing the first few turns but self buff. If the DM picks a challange that is normally challenging for an entire party, it can go downhill pretty quicly if one of the party members stands and contributes nothing.

As a player, I'd probably solve it out of game (give suggestions on how to use long duration buffs and be relevant from the start of combat). If somebody refuses, while regularly other characters die, then you have somebody in your team who doesn't play a team game. That's a problem. In game, I can't imagine the other characters would want to adventure with somebody who let them down in combat. "thanks, it has been fun, please look for another party.". If the player rolls up another coward, it's time for the out of game "thanks, it has been fun, please look for another gaming group".

As a DM, you also want a fun game and good story, and not have characters die without need. So I'd feel free to comment on this, out of game, or as suggested, mocking the coward by bystanders, and get a bad reputation.

From the other hand: is the battle sorcerers build ok? If he does't have relevant long duration buffs selected, has low HP, low AC, no swift action buffs, and is very vunerable, it gets more understandable to cast a first round improved invisibility or something. But standing and doing nothing but buffing for more then 2 rounds is often counter productive to solving an encounter, and bad group play.

So well, it could be bad tactics, a bad build, but also a lack of team spirit. Maybe also something else. The solution depends a bit on what lies underneath the problem.

[Dr TPK]

From the other hand: is the battle sorcerers build ok?

Almost. He has one level of fighter :-D

And I'm a killer DM if you make it binary. Other than that I'm a medium-lethality DM.

[warmachine]

I disagree on this. If I'm playing and things that make no sense start to happen, it pulls me out of the game really quickly - at best it'll create an odd distraction, at worst it'll fundamentally damage the idea of influencing the world (because the DM has shown that they don't care about making the world make sense, so how can they be trusted to not do other nonsensical things to keep things "on track?").
That's where reasonable doubt comes in. If the sorcerer's allies never describe how the sorcerer buffed himself rather than show himself as a Fireball thrower in one battle, it's unreasonable that NPCs know about that. If similar acts occur in many battles, the PC can't keep track of every conversation his allies have made or if there weren't any other witnesses. After enough battles, the player can't reasonably believe there are zero avenues for the information to have leaked, especially as adventurers are gossip worthy. After all, D&D doesn't bother explaining how there's no such thing as price inflation or price variation, the DM can get away with saying NPCs know because of the 'gossip network'.

[prufock]

As a player, I'd probably solve it out of game (give suggestions on how to use long duration buffs and be relevant from the start of combat). If somebody refuses, while regularly other characters die, then you have somebody in your team who doesn't play a team game. That's a problem. In game, I can't imagine the other characters would want to adventure with somebody who let them down in combat. "thanks, it has been fun, please look for another party.". If the player rolls up another coward, it's time for the out of game "thanks, it has been fun, please look for another gaming group".
This is great advice. In-game, characters should work out tactics and discuss who isn't pulling their weight. Otherwise, why would they team up? If the offending party objects, it should be brought out-of-game.

[Segev]

I don't think this thread will go anywhere but spiraling into speculative arguments without the OP giving us clearer examples of what, precisely, the Sorcerer and his partymates are doing in a typical combat. The last one, where the "really great character" meleeist died, would be a good one to start with. Without that, we're guessing at too much of what happened and how individual players and the DM are actually handling things.

[Dr TPK]

I don't think this thread will go anywhere but spiraling into speculative arguments without the OP giving us clearer examples of what, precisely, the Sorcerer and his partymates are doing in a typical combat. The last one, where the "really great character" meleeist died, would be a good one to start with. Without that, we're guessing at too much of what happened and how individual players and the DM are actually handling things.

I will do that.

The group was sleeping in a jungle in the middle of nowhere. There were three PCs and a cohort. There was also a fourth PC but the player was absent so I had this silly shenanigan to exclude him out of the combat (which everyone understood and we laughed about it).

While the absent PC excluded himself out of combat, a tyrannosaurus attacked them. It was night and only the dwarf was able to see anything, but the visibility was limited to 50 ft. anyway. I made two rule-breaking decisions, one against the PCs and in their favor: everyone was able to see the T-Rex's silhuette despite the fact that it had total concealment (effectively normal concealment) but it was able to move at normal speed in the jungle (PCs had normal restrictions).

The PCs were able to act freely with the target at sight for one round. The sorcerer put Stoneskin on one of the melee fighters before the cohort and the dwarf rushed at the T-Rex. The barbarian wanted to use flint & steel to light up a torch.

The T-Rex came and took the dwarf into her maw. Then everyone tried to kill it except the sorcerer, who cast Stoneskin on himself.

T-Rex swallowed the dwarf. The cleric cohort tried to cast a spell but this provoked AoO so the T-Rex took him into her maw too. The party barbarian tried to kill it. The sorcerer cast some scorching rays.

Another round. The dwarf started to melt in the belly (no damage is taken on the same round when you are swallowed). The T-Rex swallowed the cleric too. Barbarian swung his sword, the sorcerer cast some scorching rays and prepared to climb a tree in order to escape.

The T-Rex went away. The T-Rex had about 55 hp when it disappeared into the darkness. The rest of the PCs slept and continued the journey the next morning.

The PCs:
Dwarf Expert 3/Fighter 2/Horizon Walker 4 (KIA)
Human Battle Sorcerer 9/Fighter 1
Human Barbarian 7
Human Cleric 7 (Cohort) (KIA)
(The absent PC)

The T-Rex was straight up vanilla Tyrannosaurus from the monster manual.

[Troacctid]

So the Horizon Walker has three levels in an NPC class and the Cleric doesn't have any ranks in Concentration?

[Kanthalion]

I will do that.

The group was sleeping in a jungle in the middle of nowhere. There were three PCs and a cohort. There was also a fourth PC but the player was absent so I had this silly shenanigan to exclude him out of the combat (which everyone understood and we laughed about it).

While the absent PC excluded himself out of combat, a tyrannosaurus attacked them. It was night and only the dwarf was able to see anything, but the visibility was limited to 50 ft. anyway. I made two rule-breaking decisions, one against the PCs and in their favor: everyone was able to see the T-Rex's silhuette despite the fact that it had total concealment (effectively normal concealment) but it was able to move at normal speed in the jungle (PCs had normal restrictions).

The PCs were able to act freely with the target at sight for one round. The sorcerer put Stoneskin on one of the melee fighters before the cohort and the dwarf rushed at the T-Rex. The barbarian wanted to use flint & steel to light up a torch.

The T-Rex came and took the dwarf into her maw. Then everyone tried to kill it except the sorcerer, who cast Stoneskin on himself.

T-Rex swallowed the dwarf. The cleric cohort tried to cast a spell but this provoked AoO so the T-Rex took him into her maw too. The party barbarian tried to kill it. The sorcerer cast some scorching rays.

Another round. The dwarf started to melt in the belly (no damage is taken on the same round when you are swallowed). The T-Rex swallowed the cleric too. Barbarian swung his sword, the sorcerer cast some scorching rays and prepared to climb a tree in order to escape.

The T-Rex went away. The T-Rex had about 55 hp when it disappeared into the darkness. The rest of the PCs slept and continued the journey the next morning.

The PCs:
Dwarf Expert 3/Fighter 2/Horizon Walker 4 (KIA)
Human Battle Sorcerer 9/Fighter 1
Human Barbarian 7
Human Cleric 7 (Cohort) (KIA)
(The absent PC)

The T-Rex was straight up vanilla Tyrannosaurus from the monster manual.

At least as far as this encounter is concerned, I think the sorcerer acted completely reasonably. Heck, the first thing he did was buff his teammate.

[ManicOppressive]

Are you fudging dice in the dino's favor? I mean, honestly, that's some pretty horribly unlikely die rolls to let a level 9 martial character fail grapple and get eaten in a single round, and THEN to have a level 7 cleric fail a concentration check, then get hit by the resultant AoO, then fail a grapple check.

Also, the party had no light sources? Of any kind? At night? In a jungle?

And couldn't kill a Tyrannosaur in like two rounds?

And ALL DECIDED TO GO HANG OUT IN MELEE RANGE OF SAID TYRANNOSAUR?

Your problems with the sorcerer are not your biggest problems. The only thing you seem to have a problem with in that fight is that he took a round to put Stoneskin on himself. That is, frankly, an entirely reasonable decision. As for climbing a tree... Well, that's a pretty horrible way to escape a creature with 15 ft reach, but trying to escape when the thing just ate two of his party members in four rounds is not entirely unreasonable either.

But yeah, your party is not just "unoptimized," they're behaving like absolute morons. Like, violations of common sense, even ignoring the game rules, morons.

Edit: And also, it's like what, AC 10 and 25 damage to cut your way out of a dinosaur? At that level your frontliner should have been practically unable to fail to cut himself out in one or two rounds.

[Segev]

The Sorcerer's only "non-contribution" was the round he cast stoneskin on himself, and, frankly, given the threat of the thing and his fragile hp, that doesn't seem unreasonable. He put stoneskin on one of the front-liners first, too. That's actually very helpful. Given that it sounds like the T-Rex was one-shotting everybody not stoneskinned, the sorcerer fearing that he would need it is highly reasonable.

After the cleric and the dwarf, both of whom probably at least seemed to be tougher than the sorcerer, died, "preparing to climb a tree" is highly reasonable, as well.

The only thing I'm puzzled by is why he didn't use a higher-level spell to damage the thing, other than scorching ray. That's not cowardice, though; that's possibly poor judgment. He should have 4th level spells. Heck, that he feels he needs to climb a tree to escape tells me his spell selection is probably...unusual (*cough*suboptimal*cough*).

Why wasn't the dwarf able to try to cut his way out? Just couldn't do enough damage? Didn't have a weapon?

I also think you did them a disservice with the two rule-breaks. Ability to see the monster is something they could have arranged for themselves. Making it able to move freely means that they had no means to chase it down to finish off the last 55 hp.


It does sound like the sorcerer could do more to help, but not because he's being a coward. He might need advice on how better to utilize the resources he has, though. Which I assure you, this forum would be HAPPY to provide.

[ComaVision]

It does sound like the sorcerer could do more to help, but not because he's being a coward. He might need advice on how better to utilize the resources he has, though. Which I assure you, this forum would be HAPPY to provide.

I think the effort would be better placed on the rest of the group. I do not think the Battle Sorcerer is even close to being the least optimized.

[Dr TPK]

Are you fudging dice in the dino's favor? I mean, honestly, that's some pretty horribly unlikely die rolls to let a level 9 martial character fail grapple and get eaten in a single round, and THEN to have a level 7 cleric fail a concentration check, then get hit by the resultant AoO, then fail a grapple check.

Nah, a T-Rex has +30 grapple modifier. Show me a level 9 character who has no problems with that I will show you a suprised DM. Really. And it had +20 attack bonus with its bite too. Quite frankly, it hits and grapples you. Please look the stats from the monster manual, I'm sure you'll agree with me.

The cleric didn't actually fail any check. He just cast the spell in a threatened square => +20 bite attack => +30 grapple check. The rest is history. When a PC got grappled I asked if the PC could make a grapple check 31 or more. The answer was "no" each time so those formalities were skipped.

I can't see where the suspected fudging came, I'm sorry :(

[Dr TPK]

Why wasn't the dwarf able to try to cut his way out? Just couldn't do enough damage? Didn't have a weapon?

The dwarf had a dagger and he stabbed the belly twice. I guess he did about 7 damage or so, not sure. Then he melted. The cleric had nothing. Btw do you count the lost belly hp against the T-Rex's total? I did!

[Nessa Ellenesse]

As someone who has been both DM and player it is not your place to correct inter party issues. Stay out of it. Let the other players deal with him. This is a role playing game, the guy is just playing his character. As both player and DM I would have understood that. I would also not intervene if another player decided look, my charater is not going to put of with this anymore and politely asks the coward to leave. As a player I would told the guy out of game and in game "I have had it with your behavior shape up or ship out."

That said I sympathize with the sorcerer staying in the back, that is where he belongs. however he needs to spend as much time buffing the others as he does himself. I played a wizard/warmage/ ultimate magus. Afraid of being called a coward I did the exact opposite of what this guy did. How did my party thank me. Well the cleric spent his time buffing the fighters and ignored my pleas for healing (mainly because the person playing the cleric couldn't hear me over the players playing the fighters at the gaming table) The minute the fighters got seriously hurt they ran for it leaving my character alone to die. The cleric and the halfling dragged her body out and she got raised, but she never forgave the other two. She's an elf, she tends to hold on to a grudge until it dies of old age then has it stuffed and mounted for all to see.

[ComaVision]

Nah, a T-Rex has +30 grapple modifier. Show me a level 9 character who has no problems with that I will show you a suprised DM. Really. And it had +20 attack bonus with its bite too. Quite frankly, it hits and grapples you. Please look the stats from the monster manual, I'm sure you'll agree with me.

The cleric didn't actually fail any check. He just cast the spell in a threatened square => +20 bite attack => +30 grapple check. The rest is history. When a PC got grappled I asked if the PC could make a grapple check 31 or more. The answer was "no" each time so those formalities were skipped.

I can't see where the suspected fudging came, I'm sorry :(


Casting Defensively
If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the level of the spell you’re casting) to succeed. You lose the spell if you fail.

Also, unless the Dwarf fighter didn't put up strength he should have at least been able to grapple as a possibility.

[Dr TPK]

Also, unless the Dwarf fighter didn't put up strength he should have at least been able to grapple as a possibility.

No defensive casting was used. I can't really comment about the grapple. I just asked if you can make that check and he couldn't.

[Segev]

A level 9 character with melee class levels doing only 7 hp in two hits, even with just a dagger? Eesh. "Melting" in 3 rounds of damage is also a bit on the low-hp side, looking up the tyrannosaurus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dinosaur.htm#tyrannosaurus) damage to swallowed creatures. It's high, but nothing a front-liner shouldn't be able to handle, even after being bitten once.

The reason people are objecting over the cleric and saying he failed a check is because you can make a Concentration check to cast defensively. He should not have been provoking an AoO to begin with.

It also sounds like you let the T-rex have the same "rule-break" advantage you gave the PCs, on top of the free movement through difficult terrain; he doesn't have darkvision, so should have had a 50% miss chance due to the pitch blackness.

Finally, the T-Rex was in terrain that favored it (thanks in part to its beneficial rule-break), while the party was at a disadvantage. It really sounds like the CR 8 encounter was closer to CR 11 or 12 due to environment, and there were bad tactical decisions from everybody on the PC side. The Sorcerer made the least tactically-bad decisions.


Going back to focus on the title of this thread, what do you think the "cowardly" sorcerer could have done differently that would have saved the dwarf?

[Segev]

No defensive casting was used.

That's the thing. Defensive Casting SHOULD HAVE been used. That's why people are boggling at the cleric being AoO'd. It was dumb on the part of the cleric to provoke an entirely avoidable AoO. If the player controlling him did so in ignorance, he should be made aware of the rule that would let him avoid this in the future.

[Nessa Ellenesse]

That sounds like the other character was rushing in where angels were daring to tread. That isn't the sorcerer being cowardly. That's the sorcerer taking adequate time to prepare and surviving on account of it.

I would have to agree on this. I will tolerate a coward before I will tolerate a Leroy Jenkins. Have you stopped to think maybe it's not the cautious player that is getting people killed, maybe you have a Leroy Jenkins on your hands and he is the one getting people killed. Leroy Jenkins is more likely to get himself and everyone around him killed than the player who takes time to buff himself before doing anything. Lets go over this from a tactical stand point. Fighter d10 sorcerer d4. Platemail +8 AC Mage Armor +4 1hour/ caster level (that's if you have it)

Magic Item Compendium Use it. There is an armor crystal that gives you damage reduction there is an armor enhancement that would allow the fighter to heal himself. Amulet of Emergency healing your fighter needs one! The mage has is spells the fighter must rely on his equipment he will live or die by how much thought he puts into it.

[Segev]

Magic Item Compendium Use it. There is an armor crystal that gives you damage reduction there is an armor enhancement that would allow the fighter to heal himself. Amulet of Emergency healing your fighter needs one! The mage has is spells the fighter must rely on his equipment he will live or die by how much thought he puts into it.

The Healer's Belt (I forget the actual name, but that's close enough you should be able to find it, I think) is a must-have item for nearly every PC. 750 gp for Cure Moderate Wounds level healing every day, usable on yourself OR others.

[Telok]

Sigh... It's a derp party. You need to throw under CR critters at them if they're fighting anywhere but well lit dungeon rooms. This isn't someone spending half the fight not contributing, this is "can't fly, can't sleep safely, can't post a watch, can't see in the dark, still thinks paying 250 gold for DR 10 is useful against a 3d6+13 & swallow".

Sadly I'm not sure these guys could even take a single pixie in combat.

[Dr TPK]

she doesn't have darkvision, so should have had a 50% miss chance due to the pitch blackness.



Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.

I love low-light vision. I just think to myself: "We have a moon this night, thin crescent or full or whatever, so the T-Rex is attacking the PCs on a beautiful sunny day and can see the whites of the PCs' eyeballs and the dirt on their boots."
But anyway, don't worry my friend: I think about 50% of people playing D&D don't get low-light vision. It's very common IMO.

[Spore]

The PCs:
Dwarf Expert 3/Fighter 2/Horizon Walker 4 (KIA)
Human Battle Sorcerer 9/Fighter 1
Human Barbarian 7
Human Cleric 7 (Cohort) (KIA)
(The absent PC)



Please do yourself a favor and adjust these classes and levels. The Dwarf should not have NPC classes, everyone should have about the same amount of levels as I feel differing levels is not a very smart thing to do. The cohort is fine (although I very much dislike prepared cohorts because they steal the spotlight too much, I'd like to see a favored soul)

[Segev]

I would like to suggest that the exasperated tones and admonishments may be counterproductive. To experienced D&D players, the way this fight went is perhaps painful, in the same way that it's painful for a professional grandmaster of Chess to watch a college student play with his buddy when they only do so once every few months. But it's not helpful nor kind to berate.

...godlings, and I have tried rewriting that a number of times, and can't make it sound less condescending, for which I apologize as sincerely as I am able. It isn't meant to be.

What I'm trying to get at is that we have here a forum full of experts on this system. I think we can do a lot to offer advice and help to the DM and his players, either to tone back the challenges to what the party can manage, or to bring the party's game up to the level (and maybe beyond) that the CR system (which we all know to be flawless*) is meant to handle.

*Blue means sarcasm in this post

[ManicOppressive]

I would like to suggest that the exasperated tones and admonishments may be counterproductive. To experienced D&D players, the way this fight went is perhaps painful, in the same way that it's painful for a professional grandmaster of Chess to watch a college student play with his buddy when they only do so once every few months. But it's not helpful nor kind to berate.

...godlings, and I have tried rewriting that a number of times, and can't make it sound less condescending, for which I apologize as sincerely as I am able. It isn't meant to be.

What I'm trying to get at is that we have here a forum full of experts on this system. I think we can do a lot to offer advice and help to the DM and his players, either to tone back the challenges to what the party can manage, or to bring the party's game up to the level (and maybe beyond) that the CR system (which we all know to be flawless*) is meant to handle.

*Blue means sarcasm in this post

Yeah, but the consensus here is definitely that there is not a problem with the Sorcerer's cowardice, or at least that his cowardice is not what's causing the party's problems.

And yeah, if your party can't handle these challenges, definitely tone them back. Daily encounters should generally not have a notable chance of killing any PCs unless they act like idiots.


As someone who has been both DM and player it is not your place to correct inter party issues. Stay out of it. Let the other players deal with him. This is a role playing game, the guy is just playing his character. As both player and DM I would have understood that. I would also not intervene if another player decided look, my charater is not going to put of with this anymore and politely asks the coward to leave. As a player I would told the guy out of game and in game "I have had it with your behavior shape up or ship out."

This kills the gaming group.

As the DM, it is most definitely your job to mediate conflicts between players, because there is no such thing as a purely ingame conflict. If two players are at each others' throats in game, and have not prearranged the whole thing well in advance, I can guarantee you they're at each others' throats around the table, too. And as DM, it is definitely your responsibility to make sure no one at your table kills anyone else at your table. The players have an inherent problem with resolving conflict, which is that there is no authority between them. In the end, if their dispute comes down to "Nuh-uh," "yuh-huh" (which most disputes will, at some point) then nothing is going to resolve that short of someone with actual authority over the situation (the DM) rendering a verdict.

The DM is part of the gaming group, and letting your screen keep you separate from your players' interactions is a recipe for disaster.

[nedz]

The Sorcerer should have targeted the TRex's Will save aiming to stop it, or used some BC to slow it down. At this level a Sorcerer should be able to target any save. But this isn't cowardice: just poor tactics, and possible poor spell selection. The TRex's does get +8 Will save, but it's still the best option, since BC on Huge opponents can be tricky.

The Cleric should have cast defensively, but I have seen players screw that up before — it does tend to happen only the once though.

It is, I'm afraid, your place just to watch this stuff happen. They will either learn, or they will get a chance to improve their character building skills.

[ManicOppressive]

Honestly, as far as the "poor tactics" side goes, I really just can't get past not just cutting your way out of the T-Rex. It's not a mechanical thing, it's the thing most players would attempt first. And it's easy. Unless neither of the characters had cutting weapons, in which case what is the fighter doing with a hammer.

[Troacctid]

At this level a Sorcerer should be able to target any save.

That's not necessarily true. Sorcerers are pretty starved on spells known. Having a save-or-lose for every save is a luxury they can't always afford, and even if they can afford it, there's a reasonable chance their Will-targeting spell is an enchantment that doesn't work on animals, like Charm Person, Dominate Person, or Suggestion. Plus, since Knowledge (Nature) isn't a class skill, they aren't likely to know what a tyrannosaur's poor saves are anyway (although "Definitely not Fortitude" seems like a good guess).

[zergling.exe]

Honestly, as far as the "poor tactics" side goes, I really just can't get past not just cutting your way out of the T-Rex. It's not a mechanical thing, it's the thing most players would attempt first. And it's easy. Unless neither of the characters had cutting weapons, in which case what is the fighter doing with a hammer.

Keep in mind that being swallowed means you are grappled, and being grappled means you can only use light weapons (without dumping about 5 feats and 18 levels into fighter). The dwarf did try to get out, they used a dagger and did 7 damage.

[nedz]

That's not necessarily true. Sorcerers are pretty starved on spells known. Having a save-or-lose for every save is a luxury they can't always afford, and even if they can afford it, there's a reasonable chance their Will-targeting spell is an enchantment that doesn't work on animals, like Charm Person, Dominate Person, or Suggestion. Plus, since Knowledge (Nature) isn't a class skill, they aren't likely to know what a tyrannosaur's poor saves are anyway (although "Definitely not Fortitude" seems like a good guess).

Well maybe, but I normally aim to be able to cover all of the bases by level 7 (which you can just do), and this guy is level 9. It is certainly an issue at low levels and it is a race to acquire the options. If he has spent too much of his spells known on defensive spells though, then he could be short. A Sorcerer built tightly to a theme might have a similar issue also - as would a gish.

As to the Knowledge (Nature): well it's an animal so Will save is the obvious choice.

[Flickerdart]

As to the Knowledge (Nature): well it's an animal so Will save is the obvious choice.
I don't know about obvious - dire animals, for instance, have good Will saves, and "giant man-eating lizard" certainly screams dire to me.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, and giant creatures tend to have lower Dexterity as well. I think the most obvious defense to target is actually touch AC.

[Troacctid]

The stomach is part of the creature. Individual body parts don't have separate hit points—whether you're stabbing it in the leg, the chest, the face, or the gizzard, you'll still apply the damage to its normal HP total.

[Faily]

Could be. Could be like a guy our group has, every sorcerer he plays (and he mostly plays sorcerers) generally spends the first five rounds of any combat buffing himself. Which is a problem.

After five rounds of combat the enemy mooks have cut off 1/2 the frontliner's HP before dying, the enemy casters have had time to buff while the mooks died, and our cleric type character has been targeted by a couple of control or damage spells. The sorcerer might now have the highest AC and saves from his buffs but the rest of the party has been fighting without arcane support.

What could have happened instead is a Fireball to off 3/4 of the mooks that lets the healthy frontliners engage the enemy casters. A Dispel to debuff the enemy casters and a good wall spell or summons and the fight's over in five rounds.

But we get to go through ten rounds of combat and lose more HP and spells than the challenge normally would use up while the sorcerer spends four spell slots on defensive buffs and four more slots on blasting or countering the casters.

So it can be a problem. The party punches under it's weight and is at serious risk from normal encounters while the sorcerer risks nothing and claims a loot share off the dead party members. Plus it's pushing for the 15 minute adventuring day because the sorcerer won't agree to anything unless he has enough slots for all his buffs for every potential fight.

The very least the guy could do is to summon something on the first round so that the rest of the party isn't left hanging while he misses half the fight.

It hurt reading that.

Mostly because I know a guy who plays all his casters like that (wether they be CoDzillas or squishy arcanes).

[prufock]

The PCs were able to act freely with the target at sight for one round. The sorcerer put Stoneskin on one of the melee fighters before the cohort and the dwarf rushed at the T-Rex. The barbarian wanted to use flint & steel to light up a torch.

The T-Rex came and took the dwarf into her maw. Then everyone tried to kill it except the sorcerer, who cast Stoneskin on himself.

T-Rex swallowed the dwarf. The cleric cohort tried to cast a spell but this provoked AoO so the T-Rex took him into her maw too. The party barbarian tried to kill it. The sorcerer cast some scorching rays.

Another round. The dwarf started to melt in the belly (no damage is taken on the same round when you are swallowed). The T-Rex swallowed the cleric too. Barbarian swung his sword, the sorcerer cast some scorching rays and prepared to climb a tree in order to escape.

The T-Rex went away. The T-Rex had about 55 hp when it disappeared into the darkness. The rest of the PCs slept and continued the journey the next morning.

The PCs:
Dwarf Expert 3/Fighter 2/Horizon Walker 4 (KIA)
Human Battle Sorcerer 9/Fighter 1
Human Barbarian 7
Human Cleric 7 (Cohort) (KIA)
(The absent PC)

The T-Rex was straight up vanilla Tyrannosaurus from the monster manual.

Your example doesn't support your thesis. I don't think anyone here is going to agree with you that the sorcerer acted in a cowardly way, just a less-than-optimal way. His first act was to buff a frontliner teammate. His second was to buff himself. His third and fourth were to cast scorching ray and try to hide/escape from the danger.

Because of the sorcerer, one frontliner is taking half damage from the t-rex's attacks. The sorcerer's two scorching rays should have directly dealt an average of 56 points of damage (~30% of the T-rex's total).

Yes, there are things he could have done better - he could have buffed another teammate, he could have used higher-level spells that dealt more damage, or battlefield control - but that argument could go for the other players as well - they could have held back and waited for buffs, readied actions, used ranged attacks, or repositioned to gain a better advantage. Certainly not enough to claim that this is the sorcerer's fault alone, and not because of cowardice.

[Jack_Simth]

Your example doesn't support your thesis. I don't think anyone here is going to agree with you that the sorcerer acted in a cowardly way, just a less-than-optimal way. His first act was to buff a frontliner teammate. His second was to buff himself. His third and fourth were to cast scorching ray and try to hide/escape from the danger.

Because of the sorcerer, one frontliner is taking half damage from the t-rex's attacks. The sorcerer's two scorching rays should have directly dealt an average of 56 points of damage (~30% of the T-rex's total).

Yes, there are things he could have done better - he could have buffed another teammate, he could have used higher-level spells that dealt more damage, or battlefield control - but that argument could go for the other players as well - they could have held back and waited for buffs, readied actions, used ranged attacks, or repositioned to gain a better advantage. Certainly not enough to claim that this is the sorcerer's fault alone, and not because of cowardice.Agreed. He only ran after half the party was dead, and he started with strengthening his teammates.

The rest of the example shows a series of decisions that fall below WotC's optimization expectations, which appears to be something from which the entire party suffers. There's nothing wrong with this (it's just playstyle), it's just that the game was built with a different set of expectations, and the conflict is causing you headaches.

There are a few basic solutions to this:
1) Arrange to teach the players how to make more optimal decisions, then help them rebuild their characters to suit.
2) Drop the challenge rating of things that you throw at the party and/or play the opponents in an equally suboptimal manner.
3) Start ignoring the WBL tables and the random treasure generation tables, and start dropping loot that's particularly useful to the party so as to make them more optimal that way (e.g., the Sorcerer gets a combined rod of Reach and Chain spell, so that 3/day that Stoneskin affects the entire party immediately; the party meatshields end up with +4 shifting (made it up on the spot) weapons that can, as a swift action, be commanded to reshape into any other weapon with which you're proficient. Things of that nature).

[Necroticplague]

Nah, a T-Rex has +30 grapple modifier. Show me a level 9 character who has no problems with that I will show you a suprised DM. Really. (

Is this a literal question or a rhetorical one?

human Were-Large Sewerm (ECL 7) Fighter 2. Assuming base starting of 20 STR (18 at chargen, +2 from levelup bonuses).

Grapple Mod in hybrid form:+5BaB+4size+16 racial+14 STR=+39 to grapple. Solid 9 point lead on the t-rex, didn't even sink a feat into improved grapple.

There are ways to go higher, but I was feeling lazy. Half-orc would have another +1 from STR, swapping a fighter level for Lolth-touched would lose one BAB, but gain 3 from increased STRC. Could probably wrangle a bigger bonus out of half-goristro or simply a Psywar using Expansion or Half-minotaur, but don't feel like running the numbers.

[Elder_Basilisk]

You don't need any exotic races or templates to get out of the grapple. Whatever the heck were-swarms are, you don't need that level of optimization to avoid grapples.

Fighter 9
BAB +9, Strength +6, Improved Grapple +4=Grapple +19
combat reflexes, close quarters fighting, greater weapon focus, and melee weapon mastery, and a +2 greatsword (thanks to a wizard or cleric with greater magic weapon).

Greatsword +9 BAB, +6 strength,+4 feats, +2 enhancement=+21 to hit for a very likely hit on the AoO. Damage 2d6+9 strength+4 feats, +2 enhancement = average of 22. Grapple check +41 to resist the grapple. Trying to improved grab him just makes you die faster.

Make the guy a monk 2/fighter 9 for a more efficient character and he only loses one from that grapple resistance. Heck, a halfling with a one-handed weapon can do it (been there, have the character sheet). The key part of the build is close quarters fighting. a front liner with that feat is very difficult to grapple.

The other kind of character who can avoid that easily is a cleric with the travel domain. In Greyhawk, clericzillas of Kelanen (travel and war) are popular for that reason--both single/prestige classed and as a level dip.

Wildshaping druidzillas are pretty good at grappling back, and a righteous mighted clericzilla of any kind is pretty hard to grapple too (though the Tyrannosaurus will still win more often than not).

And any character with an anklet of translocation has an easy get out of grapple free card.

[Agincourt]

Let's not derail this thread with builds that could overpower a T-Rex. I hope the OP now realizes that his group is not well-optimized. Piling on at this point does not really serve any purpose.

I would like to hear back from the OP about what he intends to do going forward. I don't think anyone has agreed with him that his sorcerer is cowardly. Hopefully he has taken to heart some of the constructive feedback of how to continue.

[Segev]

I will agree that having to build dedicated towards grappling to beat the Tyranosaurus's grapple ability is supporting the OP's point, there: MOST fighters at level 9 won't be quite that optimized for grapple, specifically.

That said, by level nine, having a couple of one-shot magic items of freedom of movement for just such (hopefully rare) occasions as the grapple-monster-of-doom (for your ECL) is perfectly reasonable. Especially spread across a whole party.

[Flickerdart]

That said, by level nine, having a couple of one-shot magic items of freedom of movement for just such (hopefully rare) occasions as the grapple-monster-of-doom (for your ECL) is perfectly reasonable. Especially spread across a whole party.

It may be more effective to buy anklets of translocation instead, since they can get you out of grapples but have other uses, and aren't disposable.

[Fizban]

If you wish your players to improve their tactics, maybe go over what they've learned? Session recap! Now what did we learn? Lessons learned in this battle:

Set a watch rotation
Always have light-don't waste time in combat turning it on (have the Cleric cast Continual Flame)
Big things can eat you, don't stand next to them
Always carry a light weapon in case you get eaten, maybe a magic one and/or a Spiked Gauntlet you don't have to spend actions drawing
Always cast defensively
If someone gets eaten, kill the target faster
If the target tries to escape, they're probably almost dead. See above re: kill the target faster.

I do wish that list included, "Stoneskin is not an adequate defense against being eaten," but it looks like the Barbarian who never reached combat due to lighting a torch is probably the recipient, and he wasn't attacked. So it's not a lesson they actually learned.

Some would say that list should include, "don't charge ahead," but in the case of a dumb animal that does keep the heat off the back row for at least another round. Feeding party members to the t-rex one by one in order to delay it while it get blasted to death is a perfectly viable tactic, albeit one many characters will probably not enjoy. And assuming of course that they can cut their way out fast enough to avoid death.

I'd also like to add something about "parties with wildly uneven levels are a bad idea," but it's one of the higher level characters that died (cohorts don't count, they die anyway) and the failings were mostly tactical anyway. Pretty sure there's nothing that couldn't have been solved by being aware of their characters and how to fight huge swallowing creatures, no crazy builds needed. Biggest thing (aside from the lighting issue) is having Stoneskin be your go-to rather than Obscuring Mist: the t-rex would have to either guess at squares or at least get close enough for the party to avoid AoOs, and then taking 20% miss chance. Since getting hit means death for the sorc regardless of Stoneskin, miss chance is king, and this covers the whole party in a single action.

Me and cowardice have an interesting relationship. I would absolutely be mad if a party member was getting ready to run when I knew we could win the fight if they'd just fight. On the other hand, I did spend a significant fraction of the cash on my favorite character prepping my personal escape route because I just can't trust them all to be up to snuff. My cowardice takes the form of, "I just threw everything I had at that guy and I'm dead next round unless one of you guys can kill it first, so I'll be waiting back at the inn bye now!" Unless I turn around and come back for more because heroics.

[Necroticplague]

I will agree that having to build dedicated towards grappling to beat the Tyranosaurus's grapple ability is supporting the OP's point, there: MOST fighters at level 9 won't be quite that optimized for grapple, specifically.

My build wasn't dedicated to grappling. What I did takes no items or feats, and the build can easily be doing a bunch of other BSF things. He seemed to posit it was impossible, I showed him it wasn't.

[nedz]

My build wasn't dedicated to grappling. What I did takes no items or feats, and the build can easily be doing a bunch of other BSF things. He seemed to posit it was impossible, I showed him it wasn't.

Defence against grappling is something I build into all my characters, there are various tricks, though obviously there are higher priorities, like being useful, so it won't be available at low level.

Again though: this is a Char Op thing which may be rare in low Op groups.

[Broutchev]

One of your player is a Leeroy, and your sorcerer know you are a killer DM. he takes precaution but not even as near as you imply, what I think it all boils down to, is that you want to kill PC and feel bad it's always the same. Then you want to kill the cautious one, but it isn't easy because Mr. Diealot really wants to fumble his rolls and get in bad position. Maybe you think that is unfair, but I think the sorcerer is the less clueless around your table. But hey back on topic:

DM Help The Coward Always Survives - Would you see this as a problem?

Not if the other players are reckless
Not if he has right to be afraid
Not if by survive you mean stay alive and keep others alive

Yes if he makes an easy encounter a deadly one by sitting by, or escaping/planning to
Yes if you want a good old fashioned TPK
yes if other player complain AND it doesn't suit the game/player

If you have other example, please share, the T-rex one didn't sell me to your cause

[Magesmiley]

After reading through the thread, I'm inclined to think that the issue isn't as much the battle sorcerer being cowardly as the other players not being as savvy tactically. That said, if you do want to drag the sorcerer in more (which was the original ask), some ideas:

Reach. Try using some large creatures with reach weapons that can reach past the front-line fighters. Make the caster pay for casting lots of spells by provoking or at least casting on the defensive.

Counterspells. Such an underused option that can work very well if you've got a group of monsters. Make a couple of them casters. And have one of them sit around counterspelling. And let the other caster fire away. Quite often PCs can do a lot more with their spells to monsters than the other way around. Trading one of their actions to tie up a caster can be a good use of their actions.

Readied archers/crossbowmen. Again, very effective at dealing with poorly armored casters.

Set up the battlefield so that the players must keep moving. Collapsing floor/bridge, oozing lava, oncoming fire, etc. There are cases where hanging back is bad.

Another monster attacking from the back. This one is pretty simple - a round or two after the PCs engage, have another creature enter the combat from the same entrance as the PCs.

Aerial attacks. From the air, front lines (and melee) really don't happen as much. The sorcerer is probably the biggest threat to an attacker from the air and totally justifiable as the one to get pounded in return.

Grapple. Casters are notoriously bad at grappling. Just saying.

Thieves. In a city or somewhere with lots of people? Steal the caster's spell component pouch.

Concealment, invisibility, etc. Hidden opponents are sometimes a pain and again, a front-line may not be as workable, particularly if the party is surrounded.

Surround the party. A lot of little creatures can make for an interesting encounter now and then, particularly if they're organized and surrounding the party, so that everyone is in danger. I've had even high-level characters panic about orcs when I put enough figures on the table.

I'd concur with others not to use stuff that stifles a particular play style constantly, but using different tactics and strategies now and then can really mix things up.

[Dr TPK]

Let's not derail this thread with builds that could overpower a T-Rex. I hope the OP now realizes that his group is not well-optimized. Piling on at this point does not really serve any purpose.

I would like to hear back from the OP about what he intends to do going forward. I don't think anyone has agreed with him that his sorcerer is cowardly. Hopefully he has taken to heart some of the constructive feedback of how to continue.

The feedback has been great and I thank you all for it! I see now that the sorcerer is not that much of a coward, even though I have always seen him like that, and that the problem has been the party in general and their lack of tactics.

Other than that I think the lesson for me has been not to interfere with the party that much and just do my part as the DM. Not that I have interfered, but the basic idea is not to get worked up if the PCs seem cowardly etc. It's not my role to think about their tactics or lack thereof.

[Telok]

It's not my role to think about their tactics or lack thereof.

I'd still suggest a little bit of lowballing some of the more difficult encounters. For instance they're the right level to encounter a Mind Flayer, but it would slaughter them.

[Amphetryon]

It's not my role to think about their tactics or lack thereof.
Actually, I'd argue that is part of your role as DM. Party tactics can be a major factor in an encounter's actual CR, as opposed to its CR on paper. A DM who doesn't account for a party's typical approach is more likely to throw encounters that are harder or easier for the party than what would be expected going by-the-book.

[ManicOppressive]

The stomach is part of the creature. Individual body parts don't have separate hit points—whether you're stabbing it in the leg, the chest, the face, or the gizzard, you'll still apply the damage to its normal HP total.


Swallow Whole (Ex)
A tyrannosaurus can try to swallow a grabbed opponent of up to two sizes smaller by making a successful grapple check. The swallowed creature takes 2d8+8 points of bludgeoning damage and 8 points of acid damage per round from the tyrannosaurus’s gizzard. A swallowed creature can cut its way out by using a light slashing or piercing weapon to deal 25 points of damage to the gizzard (AC 12). Once the creature exits, muscular action closes the hole; another swallowed opponent must cut its own way out.

It doesn't actually apply damage to a separate total, but there is a separate number to cut your way out.

[Dr TPK]

Actually, I'd argue that is part of your role as DM. Party tactics can be a major factor in an encounter's actual CR, as opposed to its CR on paper. A DM who doesn't account for a party's typical approach is more likely to throw encounters that are harder or easier for the party than what would be expected going by-the-book.

Although there are some consistencies, my players are so unpredictable that trying to take anything to account that involves their mindset is a pure waste of time.

[Segev]

If your players are all having fun and not minding how things are going, I'd keep doing what you've been doing. If they're frustrated, then please point them to the boards here. We'll be happy to help them optimize their tactics. We may not even need to optimize builds (and, to my fellow playgrounders, I recommend AGAINST doing that at first, so that the repeated dying doesn't lead to a great disparity in optimiztion levels in the party) so much as just take what they've built and give them advice on how better to use it.


I will note that obscuring mist shouldn't have been necessary in this particular fight; the T-rex should have been facing a 50% miss chance by the rules the OP said he was using (it's pitch black but he cheated to let the PCs see, no mention of letting the T-rex do so). It doesn't have darkvision, only low-light, and no light sources means no low-light vision works.

[Dr TPK]

If your players are all having fun and not minding how things are going, I'd keep doing what you've been doing. If they're frustrated, then please point them to the boards here. We'll be happy to help them optimize their tactics. We may not even need to optimize builds (and, to my fellow playgrounders, I recommend AGAINST doing that at first, so that the repeated dying doesn't lead to a great disparity in optimiztion levels in the party) so much as just take what they've built and give them advice on how better to use it.



Certainly! I'd like that very much! I'm just afraid that it might lead to some kind of arms race where I try to make the encounters a bit dangerous and the players try to make them... not dangerous :) But I guess that's all fun and games.

[Amphetryon]

If your players are all having fun and not minding how things are going, I'd keep doing what you've been doing. If they're frustrated, then please point them to the boards here. We'll be happy to help them optimize their tactics. We may not even need to optimize builds (and, to my fellow playgrounders, I recommend AGAINST doing that at first, so that the repeated dying doesn't lead to a great disparity in optimiztion levels in the party) so much as just take what they've built and give them advice on how better to use it.


I will note that obscuring mist shouldn't have been necessary in this particular fight; the T-rex should have been facing a 50% miss chance by the rules the OP said he was using (it's pitch black but he cheated to let the PCs see, no mention of letting the T-rex do so). It doesn't have darkvision, only low-light, and no light sources means no low-light vision works.
If I read the OP's commentary correctly, he ruled that Low-Light Vision worked just fine for the T-Rex, because it was outside at night, under moonlit conditions.

[Dr TPK]

If I read the OP's commentary correctly, he ruled that Low-Light Vision worked just fine for the T-Rex, because it was outside at night, under moonlit conditions.

Yes, but saying that it was a "ruling" seems a bit strange. It's the same as saying that it's a ruling when I roll an eight-sided die when an NPC scores a hit with a longsword or if I tell that someone is dead when dropped to -10 hp.

[StreamOfTheSky]

It's because of things like what the OP describes that I've tried to penalize death as little as possible. Sure, if a player does something really stupid or reckless there should be repercussions. But most of the time in my experience, when someone dies they weren't doing anything particularly dumb, they were just trying to do their job in the party -- yes, that means it's usually the melee fighters, and yes, they're already the weakest ones in the party so punishing them for starting w/ a disadvantage seems incredibly mean-spirited. If you punish them for dying by docking them a level on their new character / revived character, or the survivors end up with more loot, you're just enabling and accelerating the vicious cycle.

And yes, I've noticed it's often PCs who do little to contribute to combat and just try to protect themselves that are the ones to never lose a PC. It rewards the wrong kind of behavior, I think. I've been in a party w/ a level 20 dwarven defender (we were all 17-18, cause our PCs died at points and his never did) who was so offensively useless that he spent a full minute just defeating a single CR 6 monster, while the other 3 of us were fighting off about three dozen of them ranging in CR from 6 to 18 (a balanced mix across the CR spectrum too, not just one really tough foe), often dropping several CR 6ish enemies per each of our turns. The DM played enemies smart, and he was blatantly a threat to no one, so he was always their lowest priority target. Half the party died, but of course he lived (we would have all survived too, if we could have gotten to the objective faster then teleported out, but between his speed 20, defensive stance nearly immobilizing him, and his stubborn refusal to end it early, he delayed us quite a while, with enemy reinforcements piling up). Just one example of many....most of the others are caster cowards like in the OP.

[Flickerdart]

The problem with death in this sort of game is that it isn't interesting. It's not interesting to the player, who has to sit around until he can a) get his guy resurrected, or b) make a new guy (which can take hours). It's not interesting to the other players, who now have to drop what they were doing and resurrect this guy. It's not even interesting to the DM, since deaths in 3.5 tend to be less "Boromir's heroic last stand against a bajillion orcs" and more "whoops, the bear crits again."

It's important to note that I'm not against setbacks or failures. Setbacks or failures can be interesting, if done correctly, and death of a PC can lead to a setback or a failure. But it's not the only way, or even a good way, of accomplishing that goal.

[nedz]

It's because of things like what the OP describes that I've tried to penalize death as little as possible. Sure, if a player does something really stupid or reckless there should be repercussions. But most of the time in my experience, when someone dies they weren't doing anything particularly dumb, they were just trying to do their job in the party -- yes, that means it's usually the melee fighters, and yes, they're already the weakest ones in the party so punishing them for starting w/ a disadvantage seems incredibly mean-spirited. If you punish them for dying by docking them a level on their new character / revived character, or the survivors end up with more loot, you're just enabling and accelerating the vicious cycle.

When I first started running 3.5 I house ruled that you lost 1,000 xp the first time you died, 2,000 xp the second etc.

This still wasn't enough for the poor chap who decided to play the scout and so he got further and further behind — which, of course, exacerbated the problem. No sense blaming the guy, he was having fun, he just had a glass cannon.

I've since decided to dump the xp penalty completely. Dying in 3.5 is an occupational hazard, especially if you are brave, and is it such a good idea to punish risk taking ?

[ComaVision]

I think that's just a matter of preference. Personally, I'd be bored if my character's life wasn't on the line in combat, and my DMing reflects that. I don't actively try to kill my PCs but I don't avoid it either. My groups always have at least one guy that's there for the combat and doesn't care about the story, so I can't have very roleplay centered games and scale back combat difficulty if everyone is going to have fun.

[Segev]

Not directly apropos to the topic, but in line with where it's drifted, one of the more useful techniques I've found as a GM in any system is finding ways to have the combat not be its own purpose. Not to pick on the OP, here, but random encounters like the T-rex in the jungle are exactly the kind of "combat is its own purpose" thing I'm talking about: there's little reason to fight other than one side has decided to kill the other (for good or bad reasons).

If you can develop goals that the players need to accomplish, and have combat merely be the obstacle to those goals, it changes things. Suddenly, "kill the other side" is not the only win condition. And it's quite possible to win without killing all of the foes, or to lose without being wiped out or even forced to retreat. Imagine, for example, the search for a relic of doom. Keeping the bad guys from getting out of the temple with it, or getting out of the temple with it, yourselves, and away from the bad guys, is the goal. The bad guys will fight to get it and keep it from you, but they don't necessarily care whether you survive or not. As long as they get away with it, they win and you lose. Similarly, you don't have to kill them all to win; just get the relic and escape!

Even a random encounter can have something like this: if the random bandits are attacking a trade caravan, suddenly the fight is not about "stop the bandits from killing us," but "save the caravan from the bandits." The goal is to keep the bandits from killing far more helpless NPCs, from making off with the caravan's loot, etc., and the bandits' goals are to make off with the loot (and maybe the women...or hot young men, if that's their preference...if they can) before anybody can stop them. Again, killing people is possible, and can lead to victory, but is not essential.

[Vizzerdrix]

See this is why I always build my sorcs into MotAO. One well placed Ray of Stupidity would have turned the almost TPK into a minor annoyance (and breakfast! I'd have totally side quested to see if it had eggs anywhere close by, THEN cooked those suckers! Omelets fo' days, son! DAAAAAYS!

[SirNMN]

He hangs around in the back? That's fine. Easy to counter. Suppose we have a 'dungeon' (could be a normal building, really), set up roughly like so:


_________________________________________________
| E D | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| |>| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | D E |
_________________________________________________

D = Door
E = Enemy (possible group of Enemies, doesn't specifically matter)
> = Where the party comes into this area.
| or _ = wall
(So I'm not very good at drawing in ASCII, should get the point across OK, though)

better than I could do

[Jack_Simth]

See this is why I always build my sorcs into MotAO. One well placed Ray of Stupidity would have turned the almost TPK into a minor annoyance (and breakfast! I'd have totally side quested to see if it had eggs anywhere close by, THEN cooked those suckers! Omelets fo' days, son! DAAAAAYS!

... you do realize that Mage of the Arcane Order specifies the Player's Handbook, right? Sidebar, page 49 titled "The Spellpool", subheading "Spell Availability". The specific wording is "No 0-level spells are available, but the Spellpool can provide any other spell on the wizard/sorcerer spell list in the Player's Handbook, as well as any additional spells designated by the DM."

So essentially, all PHB Sor/Wiz spells (except for cantrips) are available, but spells not in the PHB need to be specifically volunteered by the DM.

[Vizzerdrix]

Very true, but you load your base list with useful non PHB spells and access the PHB spells as needed.

[Necroticplague]

Considering how many of the most broken spells are in the PHB, I'm not sure that's much of a limiter.

[Quertus]

I consider the sorcerer surviving to be the good part - you actually have continuity to the game by having one person who was there from the beginning. And you have one player / character who has "Tactics -1", as opposed to the party default "Tactics -2" :P Mind you, I sometimes enjoy playing a character with "Tactics -2".

To play devil's advocate for a moment, if you do TPK everyone but the sorcerer, consider implementing a new rule: all new characters start at level 1. Then scale back to CR 1 encounters.

Suddenly, the sorcerer is way more survivable than the rest of the party - see if he acts that way, and endears this character to you more.

And the rest of the party now has much more incentive to be smart, and not get killed off every session. See if they don't learn to play smarter - and develop better team tactics - with this terrible incentive.

[Amphetryon]

Yes, but saying that it was a "ruling" seems a bit strange. It's the same as saying that it's a ruling when I roll an eight-sided die when an NPC scores a hit with a longsword or if I tell that someone is dead when dropped to -10 hp.

Given that others in this thread have indicated the T-Rex would be more hindered by the darkness than would seem to have been the case in your scenario, the verbiage I chose seemed apropos.