Bully DM or no?

[Mandarin]

This is the first time most of the people in my group have played D&D. We are doing the Horde of the Dragon Queen campaign episode 1. So the first thing that happens that kind of catches my attention is we go to the temple and there is a dragon claw. We had just hit level 2 and my moon druid goes bear form, attacks the claw. The claw hits him for 19 damage. I didnt say anything... rng can suck sometimes so we move on.

Now we are at the final battle against the half dragon outside the keep. He challenges for a duel and offer myself up being a moon druid with lots of hp and stuff. I walk out and half dragon starts talking more... I cut him off and ask so we fight one on one and you let the prisoners go? He says yes and starts talking again... I turn into bear form and get suprise attack round. ... goes well I do some decent damage... Halfdragons turn... he hits me for a total of 55 damage.... one shot...one shot dead.... okay I think, he was really strong so that was inevitable...

Then DM says, the kobolds kill the hostages.... the whole table is like WHAT?! DM has be start doing death throws while team hustles out to save me.

We get into the keep... governor says he hates us and doesnt want to work with us anymore.... I lose persuasion roll and another succeeds.... so now the governor just hates me and wont talk to me.... Super depressing night... is the DM picking on me or am I crazy?

[Mandarin]

Oh and I understand that the encounter is a kobyashi maru and doomed to fail... but 55 damage in one hit seemed kinda excessive and the fact that the hostages died and greenest hates us after everything we have done for them makes me not want to help greenest anymore. Thoughts, advice?

[EvanescentHero]

Not having read HotDQ, I don't know how accurate these numbers are, but I have heard many tales of how punishing it can be, so I'm not sure. Fifty-five damage is a lot for that level, I think!

[NewDM]

HotDQ is notoriously badly balanced as it was made during the development of 5e. There are encounters in it that are deadly x5.

Its not your DM, its the adventure itself.

[Anonymouswizard]

The claw hitting for 19 damage is okay, although I don't know if that's in the adventure. A trap should be able to seriously disadvantage the PCs, and being able to drop you to take off most of a fighter's hp is good in a game with as easy healing as 5e has. Most characters would probably be down a hit die for a little while, which is fine. It looks like it might have been used to push you along a certain path, but sometimes that's necessary.

The real problem I can see is the half-dragon dealing 55 damage with a single attack and everything that happened afterwards. Would it be possible to get the party's level and the total hp of the tank? Because assuming that this was rolled fairly and was just a high rolls, that's still about 5d10+10 (which would average at 26 damage) or some similar roll, which in most games would be overkill for a level 2/3 party, which is what I'm currently assuming you were (my baseline is it's starting to get too much if it can drop the wizard with average damage), it's still rather high for level 4ish (at about level 6 it's more reasonable, as a fighter would have ~52hp).

It definitely seems like the encounter might have been tweaked so that the hostages would end up killed. I personally wouldn't have had the kobolds try killing hostages unless the battle began to go downhill for them, it's stupid to kill them when you're clearly winning. I'd say that the GM got annoyed at you for interrupting his dramatic speech.

On the persuasion roll, did the other character roll higher than you (including their bonus). If so, then the GM might not be picking on you there, he might just think that your character failed to make a good enough excuse for why you went out there and were instantly killed, this one could go either way.

[Tanarii]

I turn into bear form and get suprise attack round.
No comment on the bulliness of the DM, but this shouldn't have happened. You don't get surprise for suddenly initiating combat. You don't even get initiative. You roll initiative as usual.

Surprise is when the target isn't possibly expecting an attack. Usually from stealth. It might also be possible via Deception vs Insight in a social situation in which are many people around, it's non-hostile, and you weren't already talking to the target. ie an assassin approaching his target at a Ball or Wedding. But discussing the terms of a Duel with a hostile person? No way.

[mgshamster]

Maybe the GM is trying to get you to hate both the dragonborn (for killing the hostages) and the governor (for blaming you for the hostages, as if it was your fault).

[RickAllison]

Oh and I understand that the encounter is a kobyashi maru and doomed to fail... but 55 damage in one hit seemed kinda excessive and the fact that the hostages died and greenest hates us after everything we have done for them makes me not want to help greenest anymore. Thoughts, advice?

So he doesn't like you, the entire thing has been a cluster-inappropriate-word, and you are out of your depth.

This sounds like an excellent time to go on a journey to find heroes who know what they are doing!

[Dain Broadbeam]

Hi. Ah, yes. Horde of the Dragon Queen. I am in fact running this one myself with a group of 7 players. The start can be very harsh. Some of the encounters are ludicrously hard as you have already experienced.

All I'll say without exposing too much of the story is this: everything that have happened to you is by design and not the DM being mean or even annoyed at you actions (if I read it right).

[JackPhoenix]

Dragonclaw does 1d6 + 3 damage on a hit, however, if he gets an advantage on it's attack, it can add 2d6 damage once a turn. He also gets two attacks a round. 19 damage from one hit is almost maximum possible, but it can be done even without crit. He also gets advantage any time one of his allies is next to his target.

Cyanwrath is a very tough fight, propably meant to be undefeatable at 1st level. You're supposed to face him later, at level 4 or so, or use a replacement with the same stats if you somehow kill him during your first encounter He too can attack twice a round, for 2d6+4 with each attack, and can use Action Surge (like a fighter) to get second attack action in the same turn. Up to 8d6+16 damage, again, 55 damage is possible even without crit, but it's almost maximum. He also crits on natural 19 or 20.

Killing the hostage, however, is against what's written in the scenario unless your group somehow cheated (like other characters joining the fight). In fact, 3 of the hostages should be relased before the duel even starts.

If you do something to cause the death of the hostages, the mayor is supposed to be furious with you, and deny you any further support.

[Foxhound438]

aside from the half dragon having the people killed, it all seems accurate to HotDQ. the dragonclaw has 2 attacks and a pseudo-sneak attack feature, so 19 in one turn is in fact average for two hits, provided one attack has advantage. Easy for it, since it has pack tactics as well. The half dragon has action surge, so again it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility to do 55 damage (absolute max is 64), but in that case he'd have to hit you with all four attacks and roll pretty high on all of the damage rolls. Perhaps bad luck for you.

Oh, and


but 55 damage in one hit

it certainly wouldn't be one hit. Not sure exactly what happened since I wasn't there, but if the dm rolled to hit once and rolled a pile of damage, they did it wrong. That might not be what happened, but you said the group is new, and it's a conceivable mistake. If they did do that, tell them they have to roll for each attack separately.

[Dain Broadbeam]

@PMJackPhoenix

Read Cynwarths character description, it is not complete out of the realm of possibility that the druid suddenly changing into bear form and attacking was considered "bad form/cheating" by him. If it is a bit overreaction is of course open for discussion.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It sounds like he didn't take kindly to you interrupting the module's precious flavor text and reacted poorly (by saying getting the surprise qualified as enough for them to kill the hostages), which then had a cascading effect on the mayor. Otherwise you can blame the poorly-written module.

[Malifice]

This is the first time most of the people in my group have played D&D. We are doing the Horde of the Dragon Queen campaign episode 1. So the first thing that happens that kind of catches my attention is we go to the temple and there is a dragon claw. We had just hit level 2 and my moon druid goes bear form, attacks the claw. The claw hits him for 19 damage. I didnt say anything... rng can suck sometimes so we move on.

Now we are at the final battle against the half dragon outside the keep. He challenges for a duel and offer myself up being a moon druid with lots of hp and stuff. I walk out and half dragon starts talking more... I cut him off and ask so we fight one on one and you let the prisoners go? He says yes and starts talking again... I turn into bear form and get suprise attack round. ... goes well I do some decent damage... Halfdragons turn... he hits me for a total of 55 damage.... one shot...one shot dead.... okay I think, he was really strong so that was inevitable...

Then DM says, the kobolds kill the hostages.... the whole table is like WHAT?! DM has be start doing death throws while team hustles out to save me.

We get into the keep... governor says he hates us and doesnt want to work with us anymore.... I lose persuasion roll and another succeeds.... so now the governor just hates me and wont talk to me.... Super depressing night... is the DM picking on me or am I crazy?

Your DM gave you a free suprise round in contravention of the rules. You had an enemy right in front of you. Your attack should have just triggered initiatve. Instead your DM gave you infinite initiative and a whole round to do what you wanted (surprise doesnt work this way).

If anything you got special treatment.

The half dragon is supposed to win. Yes, hes particularly deadly.

[caden_varn]

I would guess the DM interpretted the early attack as breaking the rules of the contest - the fact he gave the druid a surprise round tends to back that up in my mind. Not sure I'd have taken the same approach (and rules-wise the surprise round seems incorrect as others have mentioned), but I think it is a reasonable interpretation.

[Waazraath]

I would guess the DM interpretted the early attack as breaking the rules of the contest - the fact he gave the druid a surprise round tends to back that up in my mind. Not sure I'd have taken the same approach (and rules-wise the surprise round seems incorrect as others have mentioned), but I think it is a reasonable interpretation.

Yes, this seems like a logical interpretation (one of the few, as the OP was correct, and the DM wants to follow the adventure as written). Though still the outcome (all hostages are slaughtered) seems a bit weird to me; if it was a 1 on 1 combat, no other interfered, it seems unreasonably harsh. And not very logical, if the hostages were killed anyway, what prevented the keep defenders from launching each and every ranged attack at the half dragon and kobolds?

To the OP:
The difficult part with these things is always that a reader only gets to see one side of the argument and how you percieved it (which isn't neccesarily exactly what happened). I agree with earlier posters that commented on the deadlyness of HotDQ in general, and that some things in there just don't make sense. BUT: the numbers as presented are just plain wrong. 55 damage with one attack (at least, that's how I interpret 'one shot') is nonsense, it shouldn't be able to do that when critting and then rolling max damage. Hell, even when making a full attack and using all special features, 55 dam is theoretically possible but highly unlikely.

Note though: a DM is fully in his or her right to change an adventure. Maybe the intention was to create antagonism with NPC's, maybe he goes for a darker, more 'horror' feel. All nice and well, though the players should want to play a game like this. And, given the way you percieved it, and that it bothered you enough to write this post, something did went wrong (no matter whose fault it was). I'd just give it another go next session, if you still feel picked on, and other players see it like this as well, it's time to have an OoC talk with the DM, and if that doesn't work, to remember that D&D is meant as a way to have fun, and if you don't have fun, you probably have better things to do with your time.

[Malifice]

The half dragon has action surge, so again it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility to do 55 damage (absolute max is 64), but in that case he'd have to hit you with all four attacks and roll pretty high on all of the damage rolls. Perhaps bad luck for you.

He was in bear form so his AC was 11.

[caden_varn]

[QUOTE=Waazraath;20778705]Yes, this seems like a logical interpretation (one of the few, as the OP was correct, and the DM wants to follow the adventure as written). Though still the outcome (all hostages are slaughtered) seems a bit weird to me; if it was a 1 on 1 combat, no other interfered, it seems unreasonably harsh. And not very logical, if the hostages were killed anyway, what prevented the keep defenders from launching each and every ranged attack at the half dragon and kobolds?

As I said, I don't think I would have ruled it that way, but I wouldn't argue too much if my DM had. Difficult to say without more information. I'd certainly have warned that this could be seen as breaking the rules of engagement, but according the OP, the group is fairly new. Dunno if that applies to the DM too?

I think most of the issue here is a harsh adventure coupled with low levels being fragile. I lost my first character a bit before this point in the adventure - straight dead, no death saves (something like 4 times my max HP in negatives). It is pretty brutal, at least up til you get to 3rd.

[Waazraath]

As I said, I don't think I would have ruled it that way, but I wouldn't argue too much if my DM had. Difficult to say without more information. I'd certainly have warned that this could be seen as breaking the rules of engagement, but according the OP, the group is fairly new. Dunno if that applies to the DM too?


Yeah, could very well be. And I wouldn't have ruled this way either, and agree that a DM should give a warning if he feels something is breaking the rules of engagement. If I'd argue... well, depends a bit. If I had several other occasions in the same session where I had the feeling the DM was (borderline) unfair, at some point I might. But as I said, best to just give it another go next session, and only if the OP still feels uncomfortable, then look at other options. If it's a new DM, give him/her time to learn, and don't be affraid to give feedback - the DM will only get better that way.

[PoeticDwarf]

It's the adventure, but the end was a bit mean. If you have this feeling after 1 or 2 more games than there's a problem

[ProphetSword]

I turn into bear form and get suprise attack round. ... goes well I do some decent damage... Halfdragons turn... he hits me for a total of 55 damage.... one shot...one shot dead....

Can that happen? I thought when you were in another form, any damage that reduces you to 0 just causes you to shift back to your normal form.

[MaxWilson]

Can that happen? I thought when you were in another form, any damage that reduces you to 0 just causes you to shift back to your normal form.

Nope, excess damage carries over.


When you transform, you assume the beast’s hit points and Hit Dice. When you revert to your normal form, you return to the number of hit points you had before you transformed. However, if you revert as a result of dropping to 0 hit points, any excess damage carries over to your normal form. For example, if you take 10 damage in animal form and have only 1 hit point left, you revert and take 9 damage. As long as the excess damage doesn’t reduce your normal form to 0 hit points, you aren’t knocked unconscious.

[ProphetSword]

Nope, excess damage carries over.

Thanks for clearing that up. For some reason, I didn't think the excess damage carried over (to be fair, there's no druid in my current group, so I'm going by something I read some time ago).

[MaxWilson]

Thanks for clearing that up. For some reason, I didn't think the excess damage carried over (to be fair, there's no druid in my current group, so I'm going by something I read some time ago).

Polymorph works the same way so it could be relevant at some point even without a druid.

[Thrudd]

This is the first time most of the people in my group have played D&D. We are doing the Horde of the Dragon Queen campaign episode 1. So the first thing that happens that kind of catches my attention is we go to the temple and there is a dragon claw. We had just hit level 2 and my moon druid goes bear form, attacks the claw. The claw hits him for 19 damage. I didnt say anything... rng can suck sometimes so we move on.

Now we are at the final battle against the half dragon outside the keep. He challenges for a duel and offer myself up being a moon druid with lots of hp and stuff. I walk out and half dragon starts talking more... I cut him off and ask so we fight one on one and you let the prisoners go? He says yes and starts talking again... I turn into bear form and get suprise attack round. ... goes well I do some decent damage... Halfdragons turn... he hits me for a total of 55 damage.... one shot...one shot dead.... okay I think, he was really strong so that was inevitable...

Then DM says, the kobolds kill the hostages.... the whole table is like WHAT?! DM has be start doing death throws while team hustles out to save me.

We get into the keep... governor says he hates us and doesnt want to work with us anymore.... I lose persuasion roll and another succeeds.... so now the governor just hates me and wont talk to me.... Super depressing night... is the DM picking on me or am I crazy?

I wouldn't assume the DM is picking on you. He is running the adventure pretty much the way it's written, which at that point is pretty much a railroad (whoever fights the half dragon is meant to lose). The DM has probably judged that the governor doesn't like you because the hostages were killed. He also probably ruled that your behavior during the fight was seen as dishonorable by the half dragon, and so nullified his agreement. I'm guessing because you cut him off in mid-sentence and attacked before he was ready.

Whether or not you or I agree with his decision is another matter, but I wouldn't assume it's anything personal. DM's need to make decisions and interpret things, like what NPC's think and feel about things.

[BiblioRook]

I'm currently playing through HotDQ too and yeah on the forefront of my mind is that it seems to have some serious balancing issues (and the fact that our DM is brand new to running a game as is uncomfortable tweaking things himself doesn't help, so we are stuck with what the game throws at us). I think we are somewhere around chapter 5-6 and we are still running into issues.

In our encounter with Cyanwrath it was our Ranger who took him up on hi challenge... died in one hit. Like not just knocked out, dead as in roll-a-new-character dead with no saves due to taking excessive damage. We kind of joke about it now, but it was a bitter way to start off the game.

[MaxWilson]

I'm currently playing through HotDQ too and yeah on the forefront of my mind is that it seems to have some serious balancing issues (and the fact that our DM is brand new to running a game as is uncomfortable tweaking things himself doesn't help, so we are stuck with what the game throws at us). I think we are somewhere around chapter 5-6 and we are still running into issues.

In our encounter with Cyanwrath it was our Ranger who took him up on hi challenge... died in one hit. Like not just knocked out, dead as in roll-a-new-character dead with no saves due to taking excessive damage. We kind of joke about it now, but it was a bitter way to start off the game.

Not to be mean, but--sounds like good training to me. If you start off with the expectation that you could die in this game, and then you plan things right so that you win anyway, it makes victory all the sweeter. It's kind of a rush.

I hypothesize that this is exactly why the adventure starts off this way, so you can experience that rush. After all, what's the worst that can happen? Everybody dies and you start over. If that's going to happen you want it to happen early (Super Mario Brothers kills you over and over in the first few minutes of playing) so that you don't waste weeks of your life on what was really a practice run.

[Mandarin]

Thanks for the input gang. That makes me feel a lot better and I can go into tonight with a renewed sense of fairness. At this point the whole group hates the governor more then we dislike the cultists and are considering joining the cultists for a short time just to destroy greenest.... we will see.

[RickAllison]

Thanks for the input gang. That makes me feel a lot better and I can go into tonight with a renewed sense of fairness. At this point the whole group hates the governor more then we dislike the cultists and are considering joining the cultists for a short time just to destroy greenest.... we will see.

That seems like an awesome plot twist! I like the idea of continuing on and being the ones trying to resurrect Tiamat :smallbiggrin:

[BiblioRook]

Not to be mean, but--sounds like good training to me. If you start off with the expectation that you could die in this game, and then you plan things right so that you win anyway, it makes victory all the sweeter. It's kind of a rush.

I hypothesize that this is exactly why the adventure starts off this way, so you can experience that rush. After all, what's the worst that can happen? Everybody dies and you start over. If that's going to happen you want it to happen early (Super Mario Brothers kills you over and over in the first few minutes of playing) so that you don't waste weeks of your life on what was really a practice run.

People play for different reasons. Some for the challenge, some for the immersion, etc. When the Ranger died we actually even brought up things like how Tome of Horrors exist which are made for no reason other then to kill the players in intricate ways. If HotDQ was designed to be some sort of challenge gauntlet, fine, but that should be made more clear if so so as to attract the kinds of players that go for that sort of thing and so players that don't could look more into something more their style. Maybe not for everyone but making a character is often an emotional investment and losing one still kind of sucks even if you are prepared for it.

[RickAllison]

People play for different reasons. Some for the challenge, some for the immersion, etc. When the Ranger died we actually even brought up things like how Tome of Horrors exist which are made for no reason other then to kill the players in intricate ways. If HotDQ was designed to be some sort of challenge gauntlet, fine, but that should be made more clear if so so as to attract the kinds of players that go for that sort of thing and so players that don't could look more into something more their style. Maybe not for everyone but making a character is often an emotional investment and losing one still kind of sucks even if you are prepared for it.

And this is why I really like the Dark Curses of CoS. They give a little bit of a buffer and some unique mechanics, but no one wants to rely on them.

[Malifice]

In our encounter with Cyanwrath it was our Ranger who took him up on hi challenge... died in one hit. Like not just knocked out, dead as in roll-a-new-character dead with no saves due to taking excessive damage. We kind of joke about it now, but it was a bitter way to start off the game.

I'd quit that game on the spot, barring an apology from the DM for not understanding the point of that encounter.

[Tanarii]

I'd quit that game on the spot, barring an apology from the DM for not understanding the point of that encounter.
Do you often flip the table and walk away when you lose a game? Or just in D&D?

[mgshamster]

I'd quit that game on the spot, barring an apology from the DM for not understanding the point of that encounter.

What is the point of that encounter?

(I haven't played it read this module, so I don't really know anything about it)

[JackPhoenix]

I'd quit that game on the spot, barring an apology from the DM for not understanding the point of that encounter.

Well, given that it's written in the encounter that Cyanwrath hits the character once even after he hits 0 to kill the NPC or cause failed death save (actually, two, as the attack on uncounscious target is autocrit) on a PC... I think he understood the point of that encounter better than you.

[Malifice]

Do you often flip the table and walk away when you lose a game? Or just in D&D?

You cant lose DnD. Ive had plenty of PCs die. My favorite camapaign was a rolemaster campaign that went for every weekend for 6 years during which I went through nearly 20.

The reason I would quit is I know that adventure. The Halfdragon encounter is specifically designed as a 'no-win' scenario to set up a rivalry (and a later showdown) with the NPC in question. The encounter is set up so the PCs have to accept his challenge (or should in any even if they're playing anything resembling heroes), then he smacks them down.

He's supposed to kick your backside; you're then supposed to kick his backside in the second showdown to show off how badass you are at higher level.

The encounter is designed to create a rivalry, and to showcase the PCs transition from newb at 1st level to the power increase he has at say 4th.

The encounter specifically spells this out to the DM.

In effect this DM presented to the PCs (who are supposed to be good aligned) an NPC threatening to kill helpless prisoners (and offering the PCs a chance to end the siege) who calls out a challenge to the PCs to fight him or else these people die. Its a given that a PC answers this challenge (the encounter is set up with the expectation that at least one does, and in most run throughs a PC does indeed accept).

This DM then proceeded to murder this PC (who was doing what the plot and the adventure meant him to do) with this (powerful) NPC. He missed the whole point of the encounter. You can bet your bottom dollar that the next time the PCs get a chance to be heroes, they wont.

Its a massive red flag that the DM missed the point of this encounter. As a consequence I'd probably walk (after having a chat with the DM post game about it to get a feel for why he felt he had to kill a PC for doing nothing more than the right thing and what the adventure and plot expected and encouraged him to do).


What is the point of that encounter?

(I haven't played it read this module, so I don't really know anything about it)

1st level PCs are defending a castle from a siege. At dawn, the sieging forces form up out of bowshot, and the leader (a half dragon) steps forward with several helpless prisoners at his mercy (including at least one the PCs have met, or a relative of one of the guards on the wall).

He yells out a challenge to the castle defenders that if one of them is brave enough to meet him in solo combat the siege ends and they leave. If the defenders are too cowardly to face him one on one, the prisoners die. All eyes turn to the PCs...

The module expects a PC to meet the challenge (and in most campaigns this is exactly what happens, including the OPs). The kicker is that the PC is expected to lose. And lose badly. The half dragon has 60+hp, a high AC from plate, multiattack, action surge, a greatsword and spear and a breath weapon. His action surge alone lets him make 4 greatsword attacks, with a very high bonus to hit.

The module spells this out to the DM. It tells him the point of the encounter is to set the PCs up for a showdown with this villian later in the module, after they have gained a few levels. (i.e. its designed to create a rivaly and a recurring villian). It warns the DM about the high probability that the dragon will insta-gimp a PC when they answer the challenge, and specifically tells him to go easy (and not kill a PC).

In this case the DM missed the whole point of the encounter and had this NPC snowflake kill the PC, who was doing nothing other than being a hero, advancing the plot (and working to the adventure).

The DM was supposed to leave the PC bleeding out (but the NPC defenders stabilise him if no-one else reaches him in time) and with a chip on his shoulder against the half dragon.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Being killed by a one hit from a boss when he rolled high enough damage is no more of a red flag than being killed by a lucky crit from a random kobold is. It's how the game rules works. Sure, the DM can cheat on behalf of his players, fudge dice and what not...but he shoudln't.

Cyanwrath doesn't challenge the PCs specifically...hell, the text even describes an NPC who has to be restrained from accepting the challenge first, even if he knows he stands no chance. Is the NPC supposed to be more heroic for his willingness to face certain death? The duel happens after a night of fighting kobolds and cultists, rescuing villagers and possibly even driving away a dragon, characters should be exhausted, out of recources, likely wounded...the mayor aknowledges that they are better combatants than the sargeant, and is disappointed if they refuse to fight, but he uderstands what they just came though. They are heroes either way.

The hostages would be set free in any case, unless the PCs do something dishonorable. They'll have a reason to hate Cyanwrath in any case, maybe not as strong as if one of them faced him personally, and they'll see how dangerous he is when he (likely) one-shots the NPC...and also that he kept his word.

As I see it, the scenario is supposed to show the players that they can't win all the time (where would be fun or challenge in that?), and that there's no shame in accepting that. Just as they are not expected to attack and win against the whole cult army in chapter 2. Or...[no spoilers]. Sargeant knows he's going to die if he faces Cyanwrath, but he does so anyway, to save his sister. It's up to the characters if they are willing to do the same on his behalf, and DM cheating to keep them alive diminish that decision, and may lead players to assume that even if they do stupid things, nothing permanently bad will happen. If they think they are in a videogame when the main character wins everything (except in cutscenes)... they are wrong.

[Jakinbandw]

Being killed by a one hit from a boss when he rolled high enough damage is no more of a red flag than being killed by a lucky crit from a random kobold is.

...

It's up to the characters if they are willing to do the same on his behalf, and DM cheating to keep them alive diminish that decision, and may lead players to assume that even if they do stupid things, nothing permanently bad will happen. If they think they are in a videogame when the main character wins everything (except in cutscenes)... they are wrong.

How long do you spend working on your characters?

For me, I usually spend about a week, working on build, coming up with backstory, and the like. If I was killed, completely by random, you can bet that my next character would use the same stat block, and just have the back story of: 'Meh'. As a player I don't go out of my way to break games for the GM. I try my best not to make any of their work wasted. I don't skip dungeons, I don't sequence break, and I let the villains monologue. If a GM doesn't show the same type of respect back, then I suppose the gloves come off. For example, In hoard, if I was killed in that fight by the opponent continuing to attack me after I was down, my friends and I would not be chasing after the army, we would head off to do something else. Maybe to track down a divinest with enough power to scry on the army instead.

(Well, let's be fair, I would spend time out of character talking with the GM about it first, but if he believed that killing players randomly was perfectly fine, then yeah.)

DnD is a team game for my friends and I, and that team includes the GM.

[Mellack]

So it is a bad DM if he follows the rules? The PC died from massive damage. And the PCs still get the same dislike of the halfdragon since he was the one who killed their friend. That is a fairly common trope. I have to disagree with you.

[JNAProductions]

I honestly did the exact same thing to my players. Cyanwrath just one-shotted the character who chose to fight him.

DM jerk move? No.

Poorly designed module? Yes.

[Malifice]

I honestly did the exact same thing to my players. Cyanwrath just one-shotted the character who chose to fight him.

DM jerk move? No.

Poorly designed module? Yes.

Dont blame the module. It specifically warns you about this and all but tells you NOT to kill the PC who answers the challenge.

So (sorry mate) but it is a DM jerk move. Why punish a Player who has taken time to design a character for your game, created an engaging backstory and tied it into the campaign, engaged with the plot (as the adventure encourages him to do), done what the module expects, and done absolutely nothing wrong?

You've just punished that player for doing all the right things.

You followed the advice about not loosing the Blue Dragon on them directly I take it? Why ignore the advice about Cyanwraith at this juncture, when the PC is only doing what the module pushes him into doing?


Being killed by a one hit from a boss when he rolled high enough damage is no more of a red flag than being killed by a lucky crit from a random kobold is. It's how the game rules works. Sure, the DM can cheat on behalf of his players, fudge dice and what not...but he shoudln't.

In this case he most definately should pull his punches. The module is designed around the expectation he will (and that the PC gets creamed but survives). The PC is literally sent into a duel with a vastly superior foe.

You might argue 'Well he didnt have to engage the villian' but that's ignoring the context of the adventure. The encounter is set up so any honorable Paladin type or heroic PC has to accept the challenge.

The encounter is not designed to kill a PC. Its designed to create a antagonist.

There is no other way around it; its a Jerk move that is no different to putting the PCs in a moral conundrum, and then punishing them by crushing them with a special snowflake NPC for choosing to do the right thing.

[JackPhoenix]

How long do you spend working on your characters?

For me, I usually spend about a week, working on build, coming up with backstory, and the like. If I was killed, completely by random, you can bet that my next character would use the same stat block, and just have the back story of: 'Meh'. As a player I don't go out of my way to break games for the GM. I try my best not to make any of their work wasted. I don't skip dungeons, I don't sequence break, and I let the villains monologue. If a GM doesn't show the same type of respect back, then I suppose the gloves come off. For example, In hoard, if I was killed in that fight by the opponent continuing to attack me after I was down, my friends and I would not be chasing after the army, we would head off to do something else. Maybe to track down a divinest with enough power to scry on the army instead.

(Well, let's be fair, I would spend time out of character talking with the GM about it first, but if he believed that killing players randomly was perfectly fine, then yeah.)

DnD is a team game for my friends and I, and that team includes the GM.

I spend a lot of time on creating characters. I don't know why, I'm an eternal GM and never get to play them. I almost got to be a player recently, but the DM who was supposed to run it had to cancel just 3 days ago, before we could get even to session 0. So, I've got 5 almost complete characters and about dozen ideas for others in my head (or hard drive).

I don't coddle my players, but I'm not out to kill their characters either...if I wanted to, there would be nothing they could do. They know I play fair and don't cheat for their benefit, or the NPC's. I've had a NPC who was supposed to be recurring threat killed when an archer character crited and rolled just barely more damage than his curent hit points when he was about to escape. I've had various characters beaten unconscious multiple times, and saved either by their friends, or lucky rolls. I have a paladin character who lost her hand when she did something stupid. Last session, the sorcerer was punched unconscious by a disguised dragon and almost finished by her soldiers, and the bard about to be killed for (accidentaly?) messing up her plans (and just before that, the bard was almost killed by a bunch of zombies when she failed a stealth check to sneak up on their controller and push him off a bridge over magma lake) before the paladin convinced her that she should spare them and that they have common enemies.

They've ignored plot hooks, missed decent rewards (both treasure and magic items), found interesting ways to do things differently than I've envisioned (the whole current plot being an example, bacground events stay the same, but they go through the story in a totally different way, focusing on what they see as the most important thing in a scenario with multiple problems, even if it's the least urgent threat). A villain (wererat mage) who tried monologuing at them from behind a "Wall of Fire" got shot with a silver arrow, then beaten by a silvered flail when the paladin discovered that the flames are just an illusion. They know there are foes they can't defeat in fair fight, and that they will kill them if they try (in current scenario, rakshasa, polymorphed dragon pretending to be a noble, growing army of zombies...and if they mess up enough, newly freed demon overlord who's one of the most powerful beings in the setting).

I prefer CaW game, in a living world that reacts to their actions and moves even without their input (just because they decided to investigate the corrupt noble (in fact disguised LE dragon covertly fighting against greater evil) doesn't mean the zombie apocalypse stops or the demons plotting in the background take a break), and I don't think they can do anything to break the game for me, except maybe excessive rule-lawyering and trying TO **** like [I]Simulacrum[I] chaining.


Dont blame the module. It specifically warns you about this and all but tells you NOT to kill the PC who answers the challenge.

You followed the advice about not loosing the Blue Dragon on them directly I take it? Why ignore the advice about Cyanwraith at this juncture, when the PC is only doing what the module pushes him into doing?

It says no such things anywhere near the scenario (Half-dragon Champion) description. It gets out of its way to say Cyanwrath will hit the downed character once, causing a death save failure (though only one instead of the two the rules would give for a critical hit). There are NPCs with healer's kits ready to stabilize the fallen character, but they can easily fail or be too far away to help in time.

[Addaran]

Since it seems the module specifically tells you that the halfdragon is super strong and that he's supposed to attack once more after the player is downed, you really can't fault the DM for doing exactly that. Especially if it's a new one (or new to 5ed) and he just fallows the adventure cause he's not sure.

If someone loses his character and is really unhappy about it, he can always talk to the DM. Maybe the priest of the keep have an old scroll of minor ressurection that will put back the player to 1 HP and exhausted. Maybe some kind of patron will ressurect him in exchange for a pact (with or without actually multiclassing in warlock). Or he just fudge it and tell that contrary to what everyone though, the PC isn't dead. (won't work if it's a super gory DM who made sure to say you were cut in two or decapitated....)

[Malifice]

Here is the encounter set up (from the wizards free PDF):


From the darkness, a creature strides into the dim light
of the dying fires around the keep. Although it is shaped
roughly like a human, it is at least seven feet tall, its skin
is covered in blue scales, its fingers bear wicked claws,
and its face has the muzzle and reptilian eyes of a dragon.
The creature stops about eighty yards from the main gate
of the keep and scans the walls. A line of kobolds fans
out behind it. With their spears, they prod four human
prisoners into the dim light. You can make out a woman,
a teenage boy in a blood-soaked tunic, and two children.
Then the half-dragon creature hails the keep.
“Defenders of Greenest! This has been a successful
night, and I am feeling generous. Do you see these four
pitiful, useless prisoners? We have no need for them, so I
will trade them back to you. Send out your best warrior to
fight me, and you can have these four in exchange.”

Folowed by the NPC commander of the keep approaching the PCs and saying:


“My friends, you’ve demonstrated your prowess all
through this frightful night. I realize this is an awful
burden to ask you to bear, but any of you has a better
chance to defeat that horror than my militia have.”

His stats:

Armor Class 17 (splint) Hit Points 57 (6d12 + 18)
Speed 30 ft.
S: 19 (+4)
D:13 (+1)
C:16 (+3)
I: 10 (+0)
W: 14 (+2)
Ch: 12 (+1)
Saving Throws Str +6, Con +5
Skills Athletics +6, Intimidation +3, Perception +4
Damage Resistances lightning
Senses blindsight 10 ft., darkvision 60 ft., passive Perception 14
Languages Common, Draconic
Challenge 4 (1,100 XP)

Action Surge (Recharges when Langdedrosa Finishes a Short or Long Rest). On his turn, Langdedrosa can take one additional action.
Improved Critical. Langdedrosa’s weapon attacks score a critical hit on a roll of 19 or 20.

Actions
Multiattack. Langdedrosa attacks twice, either with his greatsword or spear.
Greatsword. Melee Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target. Hit: 11 (2d6 + 4) slashing damage.
Spear. Melee or Ranged Weapon Attack: +6 to hit, reach 5 ft. or ranged 20 ft./60 ft., one target. Hit: 7 (1d6 + 4) piercing damage.
Lightning Breath (Recharge 5–6). Langdedrosa breathes lightning in a 30-foot line that is 5 feet wide. Each creature in the line must make a DC 13 Dexterity saving throw, taking 22 (4d10) lightning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

Yes thats 4 attacks at +6 (dealing 11 damage each, with a 19-20 critical) on round 1, followed by a brath attack dealing 20 more on round 2.

Your PC is 1st level, and has just done several encounters without a long rest.

The Module specifically states:


Cyanwrath is the likely winner of this match, whether
he’s fighting Sergeant Markguth or a character. When
his foe drops, he strikes one more time; the last blow
kills Markguth or inflicts one death roll failure on a
character. If Cyanwrath loses the fight, the kobolds
immediately jump in to protect his body and carry it
away. (Cyanwrath will recover from his wounds and
be encountered again later.) If by some mischance
Cyanwrath is killed or captured, his place in the dragon
hatchery (episode 3) is taken by another half-dragon.
With the fight over, the last of the raiders retreat en
masse from the town into the darkness, marching away
toward the southeast.

Rewards.
If a character steps up to the challenge and
fights Cyanwrath, each party member earns 50 XP. If
not, characters receive nothing for this encounter. A
team of healers with healer’s kits and +4 bonuses to
Wisdom (Medicine) checks attend to the wounded or
dying character, and Governor Nighthill gratefully offers
two potions of healing to the wounded character.

If characters do something that costs the life of a hostage,
Governor Nighthill is furious with them and offers no
more help.

The PC is expected to accept the challenge (and be rewarded for doing so, not punished) but be left injured (and dying) but not dead. For his bravery he is healed, given a reward and the whole party earn 50xp (reinforcing heroic behaviour and good deeds will be rewarded, but also highlighting the danger of this NPC)

Later on (after the PC gains a few levels) the antagonist appears again to be fought (and vengance claimed, or to keep appearing as a recurring antagonist).

Any DM that kills a PC in this encounter is almost certainly either a jerk, playing a style of game I dont want a part of (where PCs are created by players only to be pushed into no win scenarios and then destroyed by special snowflake NPCs as a consequence of nothing other than simply doing the right thing and playing the encounter as its designed to be played) or doesnt get the 'point' of this encounter, or all three.

I'd talk about it with the DM first though, but barring a pretty good explanation why, I would almost certainly walk.

[JNAProductions]

If you use the lightning breath, all it takes is some high rolling to instagib a character. That's what happened with me.

[Malifice]

If you use the lightning breath, all it takes is some high rolling to instagib a character. That's what happened with me.

Clearly. Thats the point though.

[JNAProductions]

I thought your point was that it WAS a DM Jerk move, and not just an accident.

Because with me? It was an accident. I just rolled high and felt really bad after.

[Malifice]

Because with me? It was an accident. I just rolled high and felt really bad after.

The reason you felt bad was you missed the point of this encounter. You pushed a PC into an encounter he was supposed to face but wasnt supposed to win, and then killed him for it. Youve let the dice kill a player for doing what the module encouraged him to do while at the same time punished good play.

You should have fudged.

In the alternative if youre a 'let the dice fall where they may' kind of DM, you should have seen the point of that encounter, and altered it (have a valiant snowflake NPC in the keep who the PCs form a bond with meet the challenge only to die).

Dont get me wrong, I know some DMs like to run campaigns were PCs get pushing into no win situations only to be murdered for doing the right thing, engaging with the plot and the adventure, and being heroic.

I just dont want to play in those games.

[JNAProductions]

Malifice, don't confuse stupidity with malice. I was dumb and made a dumb mistake. Does that make me a bad DM? I don't think so. I learned from that experience and next time, if I run HotDQ again, I would NOT use the lightning breath. Sure, a crit might still kill someone, but that's a lot less likely.

So please, don't call me a jerk because I goofed up.

[JackPhoenix]

The PC is expected to accept the challenge (and be rewarded for doing so, not punished) but be left injured (and dying) but not dead. For his bravery he is healed, given a reward and the whole party earn 50xp (reinforcing heroic behaviour and good deeds will be rewarded, but also highlighting the danger of this NPC)

Later on (after the PC gains a few levels) the antagonist appears again to be fought (and vengance claimed, or to keep appearing as a recurring antagonist).

Any DM that kills a PC in this encounter is almost certainly either a jerk, playing a style of game I dont want a part of (where PCs are created by players only to be pushed into no win scenarios and then destroyed by special snowflake NPCs as a consequence of nothing other than simply doing the right thing and playing the encounter as its designed to be played) or doesnt get the 'point' of this encounter, or all three.

Sure, the PC is expected to be left dying, but not dead...but the game have rules for massive damage and failed death saving throws. Lucky roll on damage from Cyanwrath or a natural 1 on death save is all it takes. The same thing can happen with a random encounter with kobolds (even 1d4+2 damage could be enough on crit to cause an instant dead from massive damage to a wounded level 1 wizard), even when the characters are actually expected to WIN and even level 20 character can fail death saves. Level 1 characters are squishy and combat in D&D, especially in 5e, is very luck based.

Why should this one fight play by different rules?

[Malifice]

Malifice, don't confuse stupidity with malice. I was dumb and made a dumb mistake. Does that make me a bad DM? I don't think so. I learned from that experience and next time, if I run HotDQ again, I would NOT use the lightning breath. Sure, a crit might still kill someone, but that's a lot less likely.

So please, don't call me a jerk because I goofed up.

Sorry, I'm not calling you a Jerk mate. Mistakes happen. Thats why I would tallk about it with the DM afterwards. I would chalk it up to a learning experience and stick around in this case (we're all human) and create a PC relative (vengance paladin sounds good) who is sworn to track down Cyanwraith and make him pay for what he has done (and by extension the Cult of the dragon).

My suggestion was that if a DM said what a few of the other posters in this thread are saying, they clearly either miss the point of the encounter, or are running a game I dont want to be a part of, or are just Jerks. In those cases, I would likely walk.

A DM that admitted they stuffed up is a different story entirely. We've all been there.


Sure, the PC is expected to be left dying, but not dead...but the game have rules for massive damage and failed death saving throws. Lucky roll on damage from Cyanwrath or a natural 1 on death save is all it takes. The same thing can happen with a random encounter with kobolds (even 1d4+2 damage could be enough on crit to cause an instant dead from massive damage to a wounded level 1 wizard), even when the characters are actually expected to WIN and even level 20 character can fail death saves. Level 1 characters are squishy and combat in D&D, especially in 5e, is very luck based.

Why should this one fight play by different rules?

Because the module expressly tells you to play it by different rules. Just like it forces you into the encounter and gives you the NPCs stats.

It presents a monster NPC and pushes the PCs to fight it (and lose), but tells the DM to leave the PC on one failed death save after Cyanwraiths 'last hit' on any downed PC, dying but not dead, with medics nearby, and potions of healing. It tells you to award the whole party 50 xp for this players heroics (and the gratitude of the keep) to leave a sweet taste in the players mouth (and to reward him) for his bravery (and plot engagement).

Why on earth should I as a player bother engaging with your plot, story and game world, if you're only going to punish me for it by killing my PC with some special snowflake NPC?

[JNAProductions]

That's just the point-you're not being punished. It's an honest mistake, or some bad rolls. I cannot speak for the DM in this case, but it was probably similar to me.

[Malifice]

That's just the point-you're not being punished.

Actually you are. Maybe not intentionally (if it was an honest mistake) but you are.

If I pulled this crap on a player (Require him to create a character that ties into my game world, plot and story with detail and backstory attached, only to force him into a no-win situation and then murder him with a special snowflake NPC) why would I expect him to keep coming back for more?

Its like spending heap of time arranging a fun and friendly game of soccer on the weekend (creating a detailed and fleshed out character), and your mate rocks up with the Brazillian national team (Cyanwraith) before sending you off with a red card to sit the game out (killing the PC) for no reason other than you attempting to play the game (engage with the story and plot).

He then asks you to arrange another game for the next week (Create another character).

Maybe this was his idea of 'fun', but I'd rather play with someone else thanks.

Honest mistakes aside of course. And we all make them.

[JackPhoenix]

Because the module expressly tells you to play it by different rules. Just like it forces you into the encounter and gives you the NPCs stats.

It presents a monster NPC and pushes the PCs to fight it (and lose), but tells the DM to leave the PC on one failed death save after Cyanwraiths 'last hit' on any downed PC, dying but not dead, with medics nearby, and potions of healing. It tells you to award the whole party 50 xp for this players heroics (and the gratitude of the keep) to leave a sweet taste in the players mouth (and to reward him) for his bravery (and plot engagement).

Why on earth should I as a player bother engaging with your plot, story and game world, if you're only going to punish me for it by killing my PC with some special snowflake NPC?

It doesn't. The scenario is a "mandatory" part of the attack on Greenest, because it closes up the chapter, but it doesn't force the players to do anything. They can accept the challenge, or they can decline without any consequences (except one dead NPC who doesn't play any role later anyway, and missing minor reward). It's up to the players if they decided their characters will play heroes or not. At that point, they already got through introductionary fight and up to six other missions, without a chance to take a (long) rest. They are likely out of spells and other LR resources and low on hit points. The characters should know their limits. If they decide to push on, they should be ready to accept the consequences.

Nowhere does it says you should play by different rules. The mention that the character will likely be unconscious and with one failed death save at the end of the duel is in no way scripted result, but a likely result of the rules. The character can win (unlikely). Other characters may try something, causing the death of the hostage. Cyanwrath may be captured or killed, not just defeated and taken away by his minions. The character may be death, because that's how the dice went.

By the same logic, you should be expected to ignore the rules for characters facing TPK due to overwhelming odds, or just plain unlucky rolls, because the adventure expects them to win and continue along the plot. Railroading is rarely fun.

I'm not saying you should just instagib the character with Cyanwrath's breath weapon (that hardly seems fair in honorable duel anyway). You can even have him fight with his spear instead of the greatsword to make the fight more fair (and reduce the chance for massive damage overkill). Pulling punches is OK, but I believe that whatever tactics you've decided for, you shouldn't cheat or fudge on behalf of anyone, players or NPCs.

[Malifice]

It doesn't. The scenario is a "mandatory" part of the attack on Greenest, because it closes up the chapter, but it doesn't force the players to do anything.

Thats rubbish and you know it. In 99/100 times this encounter is run a PC takes up the challenge and gets creamed. The encounter is intentionally designed this way.

Context mate. Lets call an apple an apple.


They can accept the challenge, or they can decline without any consequences

Also rubbish. If they decline the challenge, they miss xp, the mayor possibly wants nothing to do with them anymore, and someone dies (either a prisoner or a guard).

And also they (the players) dont know this at the time. Theyre presented with a moral dillema requiring heroes (them) to stop. The NPC implores them to help. Any heroic PC more or less has accept the challenge. The adventure understands this and tells you not to kill a PC but to leave him on 1 failed death save (with a team of medics and healing potions nearby).


It's up to the players if they decided their characters will play heroes or not.

And if they choose to be heroes, engage witht the plot, and do what the adventure sets them up to do, one of them dies.

What do you do if they take you up on your offer and choose not to be heroes? If they bail on Greenest never to return, change alignments to CN, leaving the place and the Cult of the Dragon to its fate, and only ever do selfish murderhobo stuff from now on, intentionally not engaging with your plot anymore because they know youll kill them if they do?

Its the safe option. Seems like if they engage with the plot, actually attempt to act like heroes as the game expects youre only going to instagib them.

You would keep DMing in this case I take it? You cant have it both ways.


If they decide to push on, they should be ready to accept the consequences.

Youre removing all context from this encounter. The PCs are expected to be tired and weary, but be heroes and accept the challenge in order to save the prisoners at the mayors request. And the 'consequences' of doing so are clearly spelled out in the encounter - they are left on 1 failed death save, get rewarded with 50xp each for their bravery, get 2 healing potions and the gratitude of the keep.

The encounter is designed to reward them for engaging with the story and the plot and acting like heroes in the face of overwhelming odds.


Nowhere does it says you should play by different rules.

Yes it does. A hit on a downed character is an automatic critical hit that causes 2 failed death saves.


The character can win (unlikely). Other characters may try something, causing the death of the hostage. Cyanwrath may be captured or killed, not just defeated and taken away by his minions. The character may be death, because that's how the dice went.

And the instant you said that to me at the end of the game, I would politely bid you farewell and good luck with your game.


Railroading is rarely fun.

Yet this adventure (when run by you) railroads any good and honorable PC who intends on playing a heroic selfless PC (the assumed default in DnD) run by a player who is trying to engage with the story and the plot, into a messy death for his troubles.

Despite this not being what the encounter is about.


I'm not saying you should just instagib the character with Cyanwrath's breath weapon (that hardly seems fair in honorable duel anyway). You can even have him fight with his spear instead of the greatsword to make the fight more fair (and reduce the chance for massive damage overkill). Pulling punches is OK, but I believe that whatever tactics you've decided for, you shouldn't cheat or fudge on behalf of anyone, players or NPCs.

Which is all well and good but this is a scripted adventure that pushes good aligned PCs into a showdown with a CR4 encounter that is vastly superior to them and is expected to win. The clear intent of the encounter is to set up a showdown with him later on, and to encourage heroic action, plot involvement and selfless acts.

If youre going to run the 'pulling punches is OK' line how about recognising this fact? By running this adventure as is, and then murdering a PC for engaging with what the plot expects them to, is a jerk move.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Am I the only one who reads the OP surviving the fight with Cyanwrath (albeit being knocked unconscious)? Given that Mandarin talks about returning to the keep and failing persuasion checks (something the dead are notably not capable of doing), it's seems like he's using 'dead' as a synonym for 'taken out' (a fairly common habit, though rather a confusing one).

If that's the case, then Cyanwrath downing Mandarin in a single round is fairly above board, even to be expected. He's certainly capable of doing 55 damage in a single round with a little luck. If he did 55 in a single hit, then there's a problem, as he's strictly incapable of doing that - the maximum damage he can do in a single hit is 40, and that's a one in ten thousand chance (Cyanwrath can make multiple attacks per round, so it may be somewhat hard to tell if the DM just rolls all the attacks at once).

Killing the hostages was an absolute jerk move, however. No argument there.


Also rubbish. If they decline the challenge, they miss xp, the mayor wants nothing to do with them anymore, and someone dies (either a prisoner or a guard).

They (the players) also dont know this.

Not to play devil's advocate here, but 'If no-one steps forward, Nighthill is disappointed but says he understands, and their refusal in no way diminished what they've done so far.' He only stops helping the PCs if they get a hostage killed, not for refusing the fight.

[Malifice]

Not to play devil's advocate here, but 'If no-one steps forward, Nighthill is disappointed but says he understands, and their refusal in no way diminished what they've done so far.' He only stops helping the PCs if they get a hostage killed, not for refusing the fight.

Good catch.

[Mellack]

Anyone who fights has a chance to die. That chance is in any combat, although probably higher than average in this particular fight. All it would require in this case is having the downed PC critically fail their death save before anyone gets to them. That is even going with the written post-dropped attack only causing a single failed save, where it should cause two by the standard rules. Regular rules would only need the PC to be next on initiative and fail their death check.
In this case I don't think it is a jerk move to kill the hostages. The druid attacked by surprise. That can reasonably be regarded as unsportsmanlike for a duel. Unfair behavior is given as reason to kill hostages. It would have been nice to warn the player that it would possibly be seen as such, but hardly unfair.

[JackPhoenix]

Also rubbish. If they decline the challenge, they miss xp, the mayor wants nothing to do with them anymore, and someone dies (either a prisoner or a guard).

The mayor is angry with them only if they somehow cause the death of a hostage. If they decline, he's a little disapointed, but perfectly understanding, given what they likely did already:

If no one steps forward, Nighthill is disappointed but says he understands, and their refusal in no way diminishes what they’ve done so far. In that case, the woman’s brother goes out to face the half-dragon.


And if they choose to be heroes, engage witht the plot, and do what the adventure sets them up to do, one of them dies.

If they accept the challenge, the character isn't scripted to die. It is a possibility, like in any other fight in the game. They can win if they are incredibly lucky, die if they are unlucky or just get knocked unconscious and left alone (beside that one "scripted" hit) with two death saves left. Character death is a possibility in any combat, as it should be.


What do you do if they take you up on your offer and choose not to be heroes? If they bail on Greenest never to return, change alignments to CN, leaving the place and the Cult of the Dragon to its fate, and only ever do selfish murderhobo stuff from now on, intentionally not engaging with your plot because they know youll kill them if they do?

Its the safe option. Seems like if they engage with the plot, actually attempt to act like heroes as the game expects youre only going to instagib them.

You would keep DMing in this case I take it? You cant have it both ways.

If I explained them up front we're going through the adventure as written and they are supposed to board the train and follow the rail to its destination? Game Over
If, as usual, I took the adventure as an inspiration for a campaign? Sure, I'd let them do whatever, maybe later they'll encounter the Cult doing stuff from other parts of the adventure, and may decide to hop aboard in a different station. If not, well...the world lives without them, maybe there are other heroes who take their places and the characters will hear about their deeds, maybe the other heroes fail, and the characters face Tiamat-induced end of the world as they know it.


Youre removing all context from this encounter. The PCs are expected to be tired and weary, but be heroes and accept the challenge in order to save the prisoners at the mayors request. And the 'consequences' of doing so are clearly spelled out in the encounter - they are left on 1 failed death save, get rewarded with 50xp each for their bravery, get 2 healing potions and the gratitude of the keep.

The encounter is designed to reward them for engaging with the story and the plot and acting like heroes in the face of overwhelming odds.

See, I see this scenario in a different context. The sargeant is willing to face almost certain dead to save his sister and her children. Are the characters heroic enough to do the same on his behalf? Its not supposed to be a decision to be made lightly. It's a heroic sacrifice on behalf of someone they hardly know. The characters gets rewarded, but they don't know that when they accept the challenge. And they know they are risking their life. The encounter is designed to show that the characters aren't the top dogs and still could get their posteriors kicked.
Paladin from my campaign would be perfectly willing to sacrifice herself for their sake...but her player would understand the consequences of such sacrifice, and that it could easily lead to death of her character. Would the other players do the same? Hell no...the sorcerer, even if Good, is too cowardly/cautious, and the bard doesn't care about anyone except herself. They also have excuses to avoid melee, one is a caster, the other an archer.


Yes it does. A hit on a downed character is an automatic critical hit that causes 2 failed death saves.

I see this more like a result of game still not being out when the 3rd party publisher wrote the adventure for WotC. Rules could've changed in the meantime, or they could've made a mistake, than deliberate "cheating"


And the instant you said that to me at the end of the game, I would politely bid you farewell and good luck with your game.


Fair enough, different expectations and playstyle


Am I the only one who reads the OP surviving the fight with Cyanwrath (albeit being knocked unconscious)? Given that Mandarin talks about returning to the keep and failing persuasion checks (something the dead are notably not capable of doing), it's seems like he's using 'dead' as a synonym for 'taken out' (a fairly common habit, though rather a confusing one).

You're not the only one, it is even worded dfferently in the OP (dragonclaw did 19 damage in one hit, Cyanwrath did 55 damage total)


Not to play devil's advocate here, but 'If no-one steps forward, Nighthill is disappointed but says he understands, and their refusal in no way diminished what they've done so far.' He only stops helping the PCs if they get a hostage killed, not for refusing the fight.

Dammit, shadowmonk'd

[NewDM]

Sure, the PC is expected to be left dying, but not dead...but the game have rules for massive damage and failed death saving throws. Lucky roll on damage from Cyanwrath or a natural 1 on death save is all it takes. The same thing can happen with a random encounter with kobolds (even 1d4+2 damage could be enough on crit to cause an instant dead from massive damage to a wounded level 1 wizard), even when the characters are actually expected to WIN and even level 20 character can fail death saves. Level 1 characters are squishy and combat in D&D, especially in 5e, is very luck based.

Why should this one fight play by different rules?

Massive Damage is a Variant rule. Others in this thread have said that Cyanwrath can't deal enough damage to outright kill a character (total hp x2), Rolling a 1 only counts as 2 failures and you are stabilized by NPCs before then. You only suffer two failed saves if you take a crit (10% chance).

So the character won't die. They will get two failed saves from Cyanwraths last hit and then be stabilized by NPCs.

55 damage from a single hit will kill a character that has 27 hit points or less, and it has to be the hit that drops the character, otherwise they get failed death saving throws.

Killing the hostages is the only thing the DM did wrong.

[Malifice]

If they accept the challenge, the character isn't scripted to die.

No, he's scripted to be knocked unconsious and then to cop a parting hit forcing him to 1 failed death save. The Mayor then rushes out a bunch of medics and a few healing potions and the PCs are rewarded with 50xp each for doing the right thing.

Those that dont get nothing.


It is a possibility, like in any other fight in the game.

But this isnt like any other fight in the game. Look also the Adult Blue Dragon.

Did you throw that at your party in a fight to the death as well?


They can win if they are incredibly lucky, die if they are unlucky or just get knocked unconscious and left alone (beside that one "scripted" hit) with two death saves left. Character death is a possibility in any combat, as it should be.

And that is where you and I disagree. I would never set up a plot line that encouraged my players to fight an OP NPC and then kill them for it.


If I explained them up front we're going through the adventure as written and they are supposed to board the train and follow the rail to its destination? Game Over.

Well if you dont want your players being Heroes (or intend to punish them if they do bu killing them with a vastly more powerful NPC) you should have thought of that.

Your argument was they dont have to be heroes or engage with the plot and the adventure remember.


See, I see this scenario in a different context.

As is your right, But youre in the minority here. The encounter is designed for a PC to act heroically and accept (as most do), get whopped (but survive on 1 failed death save) get rewarded for his efforts (encouraging heroic play and setting up an antagonist for the group, while showcasing the antagonsists potency).

You can read it differently if you want. Thats your perogative.

I just wouldnt play in your game is all. If you insist on placing encounters before the party whereby doing the right thing, engaging with the plot and playing a hero gets you killed, but walking off script, failing to engage with the plot and playing a CN murderhobo causes the game to end then its not the kind of game I want to be a part of.

Let me ask you this question. The encounter was placed in that adventure for a reason. What (in your view) was that reason? What was the point of the encounter?

[JNAProductions]

Again, bad module. Not a bad DM.

[NewDM]

Again, bad module. Not a bad DM.

I agree with this. They could have designed a well made Boss monster for a single character kept it fair and had an option for a recurring villain. Instead they went waaay outside the encounter rules and CR suggestions, and designed what is essentially an unwinnable fight barring the enemy rolling all 1's and the character rolling 15's or higher.

[Malifice]

I mean there is no excuse to kill a PC here. It achieves nothing. Zilch. You just encourage bad play from your players and punish them for doing what the adventure expects them to do.

If you want to demonstrate how badass a villian or threat is, kill a redshirt. Or pull a JRR Martin and insert a special snowlflake (Drizzt will do if you cant think of anyone else) in there and have the half dragon (unexpectedly) kill him. Make the players feel badass when they take him down.

If nothing else, have Cyanwraith KO the player (this can be done at any time in 5E) as a mark of respect for his honor instead.

I agree the adventure should spell this out clearer than it does, but most of us (some of us in hindsight) agree that this NPC should not kill a PC that answers the challenge, and the encounter should not be run (or be allowed to run) that way.

[Addaran]

I don't get all the "killing the hostage is a **** move". A very lawful character would probably be very pissed if someone is unsportman-like for the challenge.

If you,re taking part in an official martial art tournament (or even sparing) you're supposed to wait for both opponents to be ready then wait for the "go". If you don't and manage to knock the other out, you sure as hell don't win.

[Takewo]

I mean there is no excuse to kill a PC here. It achieves nothing. Zilch. You just encourage bad play from your players and punish them for doing what the adventure expects them to do.

But it is the dice that decide the damage. What if you play showing your rolls? What if you don't want to fudge it?

I mean, I've always played D&D from the assumption that PCs could die. If I hadn't liked that assumption, I would have chosen a different game.

I do not think that the GM should be forced to fudge the rolls in order to get to the desired outcome.

[Pont]

As someone who has played the role as "The sacrificial lamb" to the halfdragon, I just want to chip in. I felt really, really frustrated when I got instakilled. Especially after having used every drop of our resources, been denied rest, down to 10 hp or so and then still valiantly facing the huge monster. I genuinely believed that I was getting creamed, but I didn't expect an execution just for doing the right thing.

All players stopped the campaign, and started a new group without the DM. I agree wholeheartedly with Malifice on his posts, its not a very good module, but I would never DM it like that.

Just my input.
Regards Pont

[JNAProductions]

I hope you made up with that DM. It's just following the module, and unless your DM was gleeful or cruel about it, it's likely just a simple mistake.

[Malifice]

But it is the dice that decide the damage. What if you play showing your rolls? What if you don't want to fudge it?

Then tone down the encounter (or change or remove it entirely).


I mean, I've always played D&D from the assumption that PCs could die. If I hadn't liked that assumption, I would have chosen a different game.

No arguments from me. My argument is it should not happen in a manner where the plot pushes you into a fight with a vastly superior opponent, and the player in question has done everything expected of a player in that situation.

What has this player learnt? To avoid engaging with the plot? To avoid heroic PCs? What have you achieved here that couldnt be achieved in a different manner?

This encounter is also pretty clear that its not supposed to end with a death, but with a wounded PC (and to showcase an antagonist villian). That context is important here.

Would you have still killed the PC if the game expresly told you not to?


I do not think that the GM should be forced to fudge the rolls in order to get to the desired outcome.

I disagree. Or to quote E Gary Gygax:

'Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may!'

And:

'There are times when the GM will bend or break the rules of the game system in order to allow his players to maintain their characters. Just as he sometimes metes out punishments for infractions, the GM at other times intervenes benevolently, spreading his aegis over the PCs to save them from probabilities gone awry...'

Dont be a slave to the dice.


As someone who has played the role as "The sacrificial lamb" to the halfdragon, I just want to chip in. I felt really, really frustrated when I got instakilled. Especially after having used every drop of our resources, been denied rest, down to 10 hp or so and then still valiantly facing the huge monster. I genuinely believed that I was getting creamed, but I didn't expect an execution just for doing the right thing.

If you had have instead been wounded, but stabilised then healed, profusely thanked by the prisoners you saved, given potions and XP as a reward for your bravery, and had tales told of your valiant stand?

And then (later in the campaign) come across Cyanwraith again, and taken him down in an epic rematch?

What then?


All players stopped the campaign, and started a new group without the DM.

I dont blame you. Did you attempt to chat about it with him first?

[Addaran]

As someone who has played the role as "The sacrificial lamb" to the halfdragon, I just want to chip in. I felt really, really frustrated when I got instakilled. Especially after having used every drop of our resources, been denied rest, down to 10 hp or so and then still valiantly facing the huge monster. I genuinely believed that I was getting creamed, but I didn't expect an execution just for doing the right thing.

All players stopped the campaign, and started a new group without the DM. I agree wholeheartedly with Malifice on his posts, its not a very good module, but I would never DM it like that.

Just my input.
Regards Pont
It's a common trope that i really don't get, the "since you were willing to sacrifice yourself, you don't get sacrificed". If the sacrifices never happens, nobody is actually sacrificing himself.

"You want my soul in exchange for my lover's soul? Sure no problem, anyway God will just save my soul and i'll go to paradise cause i was willin to sacrifice myself."
By now, everyone know the trick....


I believe the consequence should happen, if the sacrifice is an actual choice. Here, the players can just no fight, someone is willing to die for the hostages.
When it's a lose-lose situation, like one player buying 1-2 rounds so the other players can escape an assured TPK, then he should be rewarded for his sacrifice by just being capture instead of something like that.

[Mellack]

Massive Damage is a Variant rule. Others in this thread have said that Cyanwrath can't deal enough damage to outright kill a character (total hp x2), Rolling a 1 only counts as 2 failures and you are stabilized by NPCs before then. You only suffer two failed saves if you take a crit (10% chance).

So the character won't die. They will get two failed saves from Cyanwraths last hit and then be stabilized by NPCs.



Massive damage is in the PHB as basic. If they are done damage equal to their max hp after 0, they are dead. Definitly possible, especially for a half-orc who would only have 1 hp rather than go to zero after a hit. Considering that Cyanwrath can do up to 16 damage on a hit, that is a real possibility for level 1 characters, even excluding his 10% critical chance.

The adventure specifically says that Cyanwrath hits them again when they are down. If you play by the rules in the book, all melee hits on a downed character count as crits, cause two failed death saves, and can easily cause death due to the massive damage rule. If you instead go by what is in the adventure, it only causes one failed death save. A critical failure by the PC could then cause the other two before others can intervene. Saying that a character won't die is obviously false if you play by the standard Players Handbook rules.

The adventure is just poorly written. Our group decided to change campaigns about halfway through it.

[Malifice]

I believe the consequence should happen, if the sacrifice is an actual choice. Here, the players can just not fight, someone is willing to die for the hostages.

Like has been demonstrated in this thread every party that has been in this encounter (barring murderhobos) has had a heroic PC do the heroic thing expected of them in the adventure (and the plot) and gone to confront Cyanwraith.

Hes threatening to kill women and kids if no-one stops him. The NPC begs you to help. As has been demonstrated by all the posters that had a PC die in this encounter, its a cruddy way to kill a PC. Plot push him into a fight with an overwhelming opponent, then kill him for participating.

Barring a mistake, I would bail on playing with such a DM, and others already have.


When it's a lose-lose situation, like one player buying 1-2 rounds so the other players can escape an assured TPK, then he should be rewarded for his sacrifice by just being capture instead of something like that.

Thats exactly whats happening here. The dragon is threatening to kill women and kids! What if they were fellow PCs he had hostage? And the DM set up an encounter where your PC had to intervene or the PC Hostages died?

Or does your logic only extend to valiant and heroic stands to save PCs?

[RickAllison]

It's a common trope that i really don't get, the "since you were willing to sacrifice yourself, you don't get sacrificed". If the sacrifices never happens, nobody is actually sacrificing himself.

"You want my soul in exchange for my lover's soul? Sure no problem, anyway God will just save my soul and i'll go to paradise cause i was willin to sacrifice myself."
By now, everyone know the trick....


I believe the consequence should happen, if the sacrifice is an actual choice. Here, the players can just no fight, someone is willing to die for the hostages.
When it's a lose-lose situation, like one player buying 1-2 rounds so the other players can escape an assured TPK, then he should be rewarded for his sacrifice by just being capture instead of something like that.

In that last case, it can even make sense. They need to track down and take out the other PCs, and this guy they've defeated is a lead. Why kill him when you can torture him for information or attempt to recruit him to your side?

[Pont]

It's a common trope that i really don't get, the "since you were willing to sacrifice yourself, you don't get sacrificed". If the sacrifices never happens, nobody is actually sacrificing himself.

"You want my soul in exchange for my lover's soul? Sure no problem, anyway God will just save my soul and i'll go to paradise cause i was willin to sacrifice myself."
By now, everyone know the trick....


I believe the consequence should happen, if the sacrifice is an actual choice. Here, the players can just no fight, someone is willing to die for the hostages.
When it's a lose-lose situation, like one player buying 1-2 rounds so the other players can escape an assured TPK, then he should be rewarded for his sacrifice by just being capture instead of something like that.

I get what you mean, but it just did not feel like a choice at all. My character HAD to do it, I mean we had just spend 2-3 sessions defending the city, rescuing civilians etc etc, so of course I stepped forward when asked (aslo being a paladin was a factor)

My point about the "sacrifice" was just that the situation was so absurdly out of our hands anyways, I knew we didn't have a chance, so killing me was just so... unnecessary. I have played D&D since 1987 I guess, had lots of characters killed but this really got to me. Was my first shot at 5th edition, so I spent a lot of time and effort on my character, just to have him killed for (as Malifice pointed out many times) doing what any heroic character would do. I felt "railroaded" and without any real choice.

Regards Pont

[Pont]

About the talking to the DM part, I didn't really get the opportunity as it was actually the other players who were going to leave because he killed me (and his general DM style). I just stopped when the rest did.

[Mellack]

That is why this adventure is so bad in my opinion, the railroad of it. It has several times where doing what is smart or logical is against what the adventure expects. The starting point has 1st level nobodies run toward the dragon? Not what I want my hopefully long-lived adventurer to do. Bad adventure leads to bad results.

[JNAProductions]

About the talking to the DM part, I didn't really get the opportunity as it was actually the other players who were going to leave because he killed me (and his general DM style). I just stopped when the rest did.

If the DM was otherwise bad, then yeah, good thing you left.

[JackPhoenix]

Massive Damage is a Variant rule. Others in this thread have said that Cyanwrath can't deal enough damage to outright kill a character (total hp x2), Rolling a 1 only counts as 2 failures and you are stabilized by NPCs before then. You only suffer two failed saves if you take a crit (10% chance).

So the character won't die. They will get two failed saves from Cyanwraths last hit and then be stabilized by NPCs.

55 damage from a single hit will kill a character that has 27 hit points or less, and it has to be the hit that drops the character, otherwise they get failed death saving throws.

True, my mistake, it's not called Massive Damage, but Instant Dead, Massive Damagea are only the first two words in that section. PHB 197, not a variant rule. Nobody suggested that Cyanwrath does 55 damage in one hit. Average level 1 frontliner has about 12-15 hp, for instakill, he needs to take his current + his maximum hp in damage. That's 30 tops, if the target is at full health, or as low as 13 (or 6, if he, for some reason, faces level 1 wizard with Con 8 and 1 hp left)


I agree with this. They could have designed a well made Boss monster for a single character kept it fair and had an option for a recurring villain. Instead they went waaay outside the encounter rules and CR suggestions, and designed what is essentially an unwinnable fight barring the enemy rolling all 1's and the character rolling 15's or higher.

You mean the suggestions that came out some 4 months after the adventure was released? Remember, HotDQ predates DMG, it was released by 3rd party company on the same day as PHB


No, he's scripted to be knocked unconsious and then to cop a parting hit forcing him to 1 failed death save. The Mayor then rushes out a bunch of medics and a few healing potions and the PCs are rewarded with 50xp each for doing the right thing.

He's not scripted to do anything. He fights according to the rules, with appropriate results. He could win, he could die. Like in any fight in the game.


But this isnt like any other fight in the game. Look also the Adult Blue Dragon.

Did you throw that at your party in a fight to the death as well?

I haven't played the adventure, I run my own campaign. But the dragon is specifically called out as not attacking the keep head on and not targetting the PCs. Cyanwrath isn't. In fact, he's specifically called out as attacking downed PC.


Well if you dont want your players being Heroes (or intend to punish them if they do bu killing them with a vastly more powerful NPC) you should have thought of that.

Your argument was they dont have to be heroes or engage with the plot and the adventure remember.

No, I never said anything like that. They can be heroes if they wish... but they should remember that graveyards are full of heroes.


I just wouldnt play in your game is all. If you insist on placing encounters before the party whereby doing the right thing, engaging with the plot and playing a hero gets you killed, but walking off script, failing to engage with the plot and playing a CN murderhobo causes the game to end then its not the kind of game I want to be a part of.

I never said that. I said if we agreed up front that we'll play through the published adventure as written, and they decided they don't want to play that adventure, I would end the game, because, they want to play something else.

If I ran the adventure, I would let them do whatever they like, with appropriate consequences. I also wouldn't run the adventure exactly as written (even if only because I hate FR and would need to port it into different setting...Eberron, propably...to be willing to run it at all)


Let me ask you this question. The encounter was placed in that adventure for a reason. What (in your view) was that reason? What was the point of the encounter?

To make them hate Cyanwrath, to show how dangerous and powerful he is, and to show them that they are not immortal.


Hes threatening to kill women and kids if no-one stops him. The NPC begs you to help. As has been demonstrated by all the posters that had a PC die in this encounter, its a cruddy way to kill a PC. Plot push him into a fight with an overwhelming opponent, then kill him for participating.

And the game instantly offers an NPC who's willing to face him, if the PCs decides it's too risky or they are in no shape to face him. In fact, he has to be restrained to stop him from runing to fight Cyanwrath before the PCs are even asked to!

[QUOTE=Mellack;20782381]That is why this adventure is so bad in my opinion, the railroad of it. It has several times where doing what is smart or logical is against what the adventure expects. The starting point has 1st level nobodies run toward the dragon? Not what I want my hopefully long-lived adventurer to do. Bad adventure leads to bad results.

No argument here. But I'm willing to cut them some slack on fights, one of the authors admitted that some of the encounters were badly balanced because the rules of the game were stll changing during their designing process, and offered "patch" for some things. Now if I had time to search for that post...

[Addaran]

Like has been demonstrated in this thread every party that has been in this encounter (barring murderhobos) has had a heroic PC do the heroic thing expected of them in the adventure (and the plot) and gone to confront Cyanwraith.

Hes threatening to kill women and kids if no-one stops him. The NPC begs you to help. As has been demonstrated by all the posters that had a PC die in this encounter, its a cruddy way to kill a PC. Plot push him into a fight with an overwhelming opponent, then kill him for participating.

Barring a mistake, I would bail on playing with such a DM, and others already have.
Still, if the character is barely alive, he goes in knowing he'll probably die. It ruins the sacrifice when the sacrifice never happens.
If no-one stops him, he will kill the hostages. But someone (the captain) is willing to fight him. So it's the character's life vs the captain who knew the risk of the job.

Also, like i said, if the player don't want to lose his character, it's always possible to talk with the DM. If he gets ressurected/reincarned, it will be a bigger message that he can't always win and there is consequences for what do. I'm particularily fond of reincarnate for that, there's a "downside" but it's mostly in-game RP and a few racial abilities, while the player keeps the backstory and build for the most part.


Thats exactly whats happening here. The dragon is threatening to kill women and kids! What if they were fellow PCs he had hostage? And the DM set up an encounter where your PC had to intervene or the PC Hostages died?

Or does your logic only extend to valiant and heroic stands to save PCs?
Yes, the logic extend only to PCs and real no-win situations. (not just losing 50 exp, a potion and letting someone else be a hero).
I'll fudge the dice mostly for out-game reasons. A player willing to sacrifice his character so another keeps his, that's great and selfless. If it's just an in-character decision, the in-game consequences should apply, i don't need to cheat the rules.

Of course, we usually talk about what kind of game we want, between the DM and players, and they say that they want me to play legit and if they die cause they chew too much, they die.

[Mandarin]

Sorry for not being more specific gang.

For starters. Cyanwrath crit his first hit and also did action surge.. so the damage was 22,11,11,11 for a total of 55 in four hits. Also, I was not killed but KO'd... Cyanwrath did NOT hit me again while I was down... probably the DM having mercy and seeing the reaction of the table. No healers ran out to heal me and we recieved no healing pot rewards of any kind... we simply got 50 xp and the emnity of greenest... more specifically the governor. DM had me roll persuasion and I failed, another PC rolled a good roll so he granted the rest of the party forgiveness from the governor but not my character... hence why I felt picked on.

Moving forward last night was awesome *SPOILERS*

We went into the enemy encampment after killing two groups, taking their tunics and mending them in order to sneak in.

We skipped the nursery as it appeared to be too well guarded to attempt to break into.... waited till dark and told the darkclaw guarding the monks cell tent that there was a guard hiding in a nearby cave thinking of fleeing and we needed help to detain him (Us being lowly cultists and not very combat proficient)... Aced the deception check and dragonclaw walks into cave to find me in bearform with 3 enemies blocking him in... promptly ended his life. We cut the back of the other prisoner tent and snuck em all out without anyone else being the wiser (Our ranger is super sneaky)


So all in all a good night and I think my DM felt kinda bad for how the previous night went and wanted to make sure we had a good night... which we did. Also my DM gave us all a nice magical item when we first started... I still havent figured out all of my magical staffs properties as every level and long rest I have to roll intel check and then arcana check to find out another feature.... so far it acts as focus and grants +2 armor. I think in hindsight my DM just read the encounter and took me attacking the bad guy midsentence as dishonorable and proceeded accordingly as if we had disregarded the while thing (I really did not mean to act dishonorably but was looking for an advantage in a fight that I could use any advantage I could get) I still dont think he should have killed the hostages and had the governor hate me but he is a relatively new DM and time will only make things better <3

Thanks all this is my first time playing and my wife and I are having an absolute blast.... I have even begun crafting dungeon tiles and miniature doorways and such to DM my own game in the future.

[Lindonius]

I recently ran this and my player actually managed to win the fight. I did let them level up to 2 during a short rest in the keep once they had gained enough xp from the previous encounters. Even so....Our player was a dragonborn Paladin of Bahamut so the obvious choice for the fight. The other party members buffed him up good with bless and bardic inspiration. Paladin won initiative and opened with a greatsword smite crit - 4d6 + 4d8. Nearly downed him with one hit, Cyanwrath responded with lightning breath and the Paladin used the inspiration dice to make the save. Cyan's action surge lead to a double attack one hit, one miss, Paladin now on 3HP. Paladin retorted with a regular smite that only hit thanks to the 1d4 from bless. 2d6 + 2d8 = dead half-dragon.

What was awesome was that even though only the Paladin was fighting, our cleric and bard still managed to contribute to the fight.

[MBControl]

I also ran this campaign with new players. I hated the start of this campaign it was either a very easy nerf-fest in Greenest, or unbeatable foes.

I think that this module like most that start at this level, is designed to teach new players that you will come up against enemies that you can't beat. My problem with this campaign is that requires you to be bold, but then punishes you severely if you're bold at the wrong time.

As a DM I had to edit a lot of the first few quests to balance things, and still teach the lessons that were meant to be taught. That being said, the Dragonborne duel is an appropriate set piece.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Again, bad module. Not a bad DM.Playing it as-is would be a bad DM move. If you cop to the fact that you goofed (which you did), then you're not a bad DM. Everyone makes mistakes. But part of being a good DM is recognizing that the module is bad instead of standing by the text and the dice after it's all gone to crap. As written, if Cyanwrath is playing for keeps (no KO option, use the breath weapon), that set piece is basically a way to lure the most good-aligned or bold PC unwittingly into a death trap. Those are not healthy game dynamics.

If I were somehow made to run that set piece and pull no punches, I'd tell the players directly: "This is a way to nobly sacrifice your character. Don't accept the challenge unless you want to re-roll." I would then have the captain insist he sacrifice himself unless a character really wanted to do it. And then I'd have Cyanwrath slaughter whoever fought him.

[Malifice]

If I were somehow made to run that set piece and pull no punches, I'd tell the players directly: "This is a way to nobly sacrifice your character. Don't accept the challenge unless you want to re-roll." I would then have the captain insist he sacrifice himself unless a character really wanted to do it. And then I'd have Cyanwrath slaughter whoever fought him.

Still not enough for mine, but that would take some of the sting out of it. As long as I knew what I was getting into thats one thing, but I dont dictate the actions of my LG honorable Paladin with a bond of 'I protect the weak from tyrants, no matter the cost' based on a DM warning.

I could wear it as a player at least with a warning. I'd still march to my death anyway if my character would regardless of any DM warnings. And thats still a problem; the plot forcing a character to into a virtual no-win situation simply on account of not metagaming, good roleplaying and doing what the plot expected.

I like Savage Worlds 'Blaze of Glory' rule theyre using for Savage rifts, where instead of going down and being incapacitated, you can elect to stay up for one more round and go nova with special benefits and the ability to affect the narrative [but auto die at the end of that round of awesome], or 'noble sacrifice' rules found in other games where your next character comes back with a special benefit, or at the exact same XP, or both.

Punishing players for being heroic good guys is one of the cause of the 'CN lone wolf murderhobo orphan with no ties to the plot or campaign' phenomenon we see all too much. Such acts [being heroic, engaging with the plot, doing the right thing] should be rewarded for mine. Or at the very least not punished.

Each to their own though.

[Vogonjeltz]

That is why this adventure is so bad in my opinion, the railroad of it. It has several times where doing what is smart or logical is against what the adventure expects. The starting point has 1st level nobodies run toward the dragon? Not what I want my hopefully long-lived adventurer to do. Bad adventure leads to bad results.

Actually the players can absolutely choose not to help the town.

Similarly nothing forces them to be the ones to step up and fight, indeed one of the players fights as the sergeant if nobody is willing or able to be the champion. I would think only a Fighter or Barbarian would have a real chance of winning the combat.

[Malifice]

Actually the players can absolutely choose not to help the town.

Which almost invariably is an equally douche move by the players.

They could just create a bunch of evilly aligned murder hobos and join the cult instead of fighting it. In some campaigns with an awesome DM that could be kind of fun (reminds me of a spacemaster campaign I once had where we helped the wrong guys in our first encounter and instead of joining the galactic police as planned, gunned them down and spent a year long campaign working alongside the very space pirates the DM planned on us fighting).

But its not really them buying in to the plot and the adventure path now is it?

If thats the tone of the campaign [go where you want, help the town if you want, leave if you want, help the cult if you want] and the campaign continues regardles, then thats a different story.

[Tanarii]

To avoid heroic PCs? lol any lesson that teaches players that heroic PCs will end up as dead PCs is a good lesson in my book.

[Malifice]

lol any lesson that teaches players that heroic PCs will end up as dead PCs is a good lesson in my book.

Im not sure why a DM would push players into acting like selfish murderhobos, or reward them for doing it?

Unless thats the style of game you prefer of course.

[NewDM]

Playing it as-is would be a bad DM move. If you cop to the fact that you goofed (which you did), then you're not a bad DM. Everyone makes mistakes. But part of being a good DM is recognizing that the module is bad instead of standing by the text and the dice after it's all gone to crap. As written, if Cyanwrath is playing for keeps (no KO option, use the breath weapon), that set piece is basically a way to lure the most good-aligned or bold PC unwittingly into a death trap. Those are not healthy game dynamics.

If I were somehow made to run that set piece and pull no punches, I'd tell the players directly: "This is a way to nobly sacrifice your character. Don't accept the challenge unless you want to re-roll." I would then have the captain insist he sacrifice himself unless a character really wanted to do it. And then I'd have Cyanwrath slaughter whoever fought him.

The bolded is where I have a problem. The game shouldn't be that complicated. It should not require an experienced DM that can guesstimate probability math in their heads. The game has instructions for new DMs and should be playable by them. It shouldn't also have badly made adventures as the only 'official' adventures.

[Waazraath]

Sorry for not being more specific gang.

For starters. Cyanwrath crit his first hit and also did action surge.. so the damage was 22,11,11,11 for a total of 55 in four hits. Also, I was not killed but KO'd... Cyanwrath did NOT hit me again while I was down... probably the DM having mercy and seeing the reaction of the table. No healers ran out to heal me and we recieved no healing pot rewards of any kind... we simply got 50 xp and the emnity of greenest... more specifically the governor. DM had me roll persuasion and I failed, another PC rolled a good roll so he granted the rest of the party forgiveness from the governor but not my character... hence why I felt picked on.

Moving forward last night was awesome *SPOILERS*

We went into the enemy encampment after killing two groups, taking their tunics and mending them in order to sneak in.

We skipped the nursery as it appeared to be too well guarded to attempt to break into.... waited till dark and told the darkclaw guarding the monks cell tent that there was a guard hiding in a nearby cave thinking of fleeing and we needed help to detain him (Us being lowly cultists and not very combat proficient)... Aced the deception check and dragonclaw walks into cave to find me in bearform with 3 enemies blocking him in... promptly ended his life. We cut the back of the other prisoner tent and snuck em all out without anyone else being the wiser (Our ranger is super sneaky)


So all in all a good night and I think my DM felt kinda bad for how the previous night went and wanted to make sure we had a good night... which we did. Also my DM gave us all a nice magical item when we first started... I still havent figured out all of my magical staffs properties as every level and long rest I have to roll intel check and then arcana check to find out another feature.... so far it acts as focus and grants +2 armor. I think in hindsight my DM just read the encounter and took me attacking the bad guy midsentence as dishonorable and proceeded accordingly as if we had disregarded the while thing (I really did not mean to act dishonorably but was looking for an advantage in a fight that I could use any advantage I could get) I still dont think he should have killed the hostages and had the governor hate me but he is a relatively new DM and time will only make things better <3

Thanks all this is my first time playing and my wife and I are having an absolute blast.... I have even begun crafting dungeon tiles and miniature doorways and such to DM my own game in the future.

Good to hear everything worked out, have fun!

[Malifice]

The bolded is where I have a problem. The game shouldn't be that complicated. It should not require an experienced DM that can guesstimate probability math in their heads. The game has instructions for new DMs and should be playable by them. It shouldn't also have badly made adventures as the only 'official' adventures.

I would have thought the encounter as written was pretty clear in its context and intent that you couldnt miss the point of it, and the outcome (a dead PC who gets killed off for being a good player) was so outrageous as to make it a bit of a no-brainer.

But that said, Ive seen enough responses in this thread (from peeps who have both played and ran the adventure) to make me think that this might not be the case.

It should be clearer.

[Takewo]

Then tone down the encounter (or change or remove it entirely).

Exactly.


No arguments from me. My argument is it should not happen in a manner where the plot pushes you into a fight with a vastly superior opponent, and the player in question has done everything expected of a player in that situation.

Agreed.


What has this player learnt? To avoid engaging with the plot? To avoid heroic PCs? What have you achieved here that couldnt be achieved in a different manner?

I don't really see any problem with a character doing something heroic and dying for it. That's what heroes do, isn't it? If you don't want to play a hero, well, then don't. But I'm really not into the "heroes-will-always-survive-no-matter-what" thing.


This encounter is also pretty clear that its not supposed to end with a death, but with a wounded PC (and to showcase an antagonist villian). That context is important here.

Would you have still killed the PC if the game expresly told you not to?

The game says that characters die if they fail three death saves or suffer *a lot* of damage. The module says that the character should not die. Should Cyanwrath roll high enough to kill a character, you've got to choose between going with the rules or with the module.


I disagree. Or to quote E Gary Gygax:

Gary's Opinion

Dont be a slave to the dice.

Gary was a human being and had his own ideas about how a roleplaying game should be played. So do you, and so do I. As I see it, it's not about being a slave to the dice, it's about them being meaningful. If rolls should be fudged when bad stuff happens, what's the point of rolling anyway? Why don't simply forgo rolls and have the outcome that the adventure tells you to have? How do you decide when to fudge and when not to? Is it also okay to fudge rolls if an encounter is being easier than you expected?

I think it's much better to approach the issue with something like an agreement that the PCs can't die. They can be KO'd but not killed. Or they can only be killed in big final battles. Then, rolls that would normally kill a PC simply don't kill them, because you've got a special rule on that. But if you're not going to go with the roll, why should you roll, to start with?

[Zalabim]

Should Cyanwrath roll high enough to kill a character, you've got to choose between going with the rules or with the module.

The average damage is right there in the book. It's not listed for fun. If you use the average damage, he will not kill a barbarian, or a fighter, paladin or ranger with 14 Constitution unless he rolls a critical hit. OP's DM even rolled a crit, treated it as double damage (22 rather than 18), and did not kill the druid. This is a new DM just reading the module and following the instructions and Cyanwrath didn't kill anyone. You can always use a monster's average damage instead of rolling, if you want to, and it isn't fudging anything.

[Takewo]

The average damage is right there in the book. It's not listed for fun. If you use the average damage, he will not kill a barbarian, or a fighter, paladin or ranger with 14 Constitution unless he rolls a critical hit. OP's DM even rolled a crit, treated it as double damage (22 rather than 18), and did not kill the druid. This is a new DM just reading the module and following the instructions and Cyanwrath didn't kill anyone. You can always use a monster's average damage instead of rolling, if you want to, and it isn't fudging anything.

That's very true. But still, you should stick to a system, either rolling always or using the average always. The previous posters seemed to be assuming that damage would be rolled, and that's what I was trying to answer to.

Anyway, I don't really know the specifics of the module or how it should be played. My only point is that I'd rather have a rule saying that PCs will not die or only die in epic circumstances than a game master who fudges rolls.

[Democratus]

A character facing off against an antagonist is not heroic if there's no chance of death.

I had a character die in the face-off against Cyanwrath. It galvanized the party and from that point on they dedicated the rest of the campaign against Tiamat to their fallen comrade.

Sure it was rough to lose my character. But it ended up being a great moment.

It set the tone for the next several weeks. Everyone knew the stakes were high, the danger was real, and the tension was cranked up to 11.

[RickAllison]

A character facing off against an antagonist is not heroic if there's no chance of death.

I had a character die in the face-off against Cyanwrath. It galvanized the party and from that point on they dedicated the rest of the campaign against Tiamat to their fallen comrade.

Sure it was rough to lose my character. But it ended up being a great moment.

It set the tone for the next several weeks. Everyone knew the stakes were high, the danger was real, and the tension was cranked up to 11.

Not to mention that it sets up a great hook for the new PC. Inspired by the sacrifice of a stranger, the governor's son asks to join the party and avenge the fallen. Ties it into the story and gives a reason for the PC to be given the reward that would have gone to the fallen PC.

[Fighting_Ferret]

First I'd just like to say that after reading the OP's initial thread... that his character didn't die. He wasn't mad at the damage dealt by the half-dragon. He was mad at the ruling that all of the prisoners were killed and that the major was mad at them for getting them killed.

That being said the module is rather punishing and could use some small fixes... but the fact that the PCS can't die isn't one of them. Showing them a dragon...knowing they can't fight it, the same applies to the half-dragon. He offers all the lives of the NPCs in exchange for a 1v1 duel. Sure there is a good chance that you will fall, there is even a good chance that you will die... but that is part of a sacrifice... I'm glad that everyone takes puts so much time into their characters... but why such a long backstory for a level 1/2 character? Their story lies in front of them...not behind them.

To the OP, sorry you kinda got off on the wrong foot, there is a learning curve for both players and DMs. Your group appearss to have cleared the hurtle and seem to be enjoying yourself.

[Tanarii]

Im not sure why a DM would push players into acting like selfish murderhobos, or reward them for doing it?

Unless thats the style of game you prefer of course.I prefer a style of game that rewards being smart. I prefer a style of play that has appropriate consequences to actions taken.

If players want to play heroic, or want to make tragic sacrifices, or just want to play dumb flat out dumb, they should face the appropriate consequences. Those who are dumb in dangerous situations often die, unless they are lucky. Those who make tragic sacrifices usually suffer or even die. Heroes usually die heroically.

From the way this duel scenario is described, it sounds totally appropriate for a sacrificing hero to face potential death as a result. Removing the chance of death is cheating the PC of a chance to be a self-sacrificing hero.

If your style of play encourages players to think their PCs are invincible heroes, and that actions won't have consequences, how are you going to maintain their interest in a game and/or the story?

[Wulfskadi]

This is the first time most of the people in my group have played D&D. We are doing the Horde of the Dragon Queen campaign episode 1. So the first thing that happens that kind of catches my attention is we go to the temple and there is a dragon claw. We had just hit level 2 and my moon druid goes bear form, attacks the claw. The claw hits him for 19 damage. I didnt say anything... rng can suck sometimes so we move on.

Now we are at the final battle against the half dragon outside the keep. He challenges for a duel and offer myself up being a moon druid with lots of hp and stuff. I walk out and half dragon starts talking more... I cut him off and ask so we fight one on one and you let the prisoners go? He says yes and starts talking again... I turn into bear form and get suprise attack round. ... goes well I do some decent damage... Halfdragons turn... he hits me for a total of 55 damage.... one shot...one shot dead.... okay I think, he was really strong so that was inevitable...

Then DM says, the kobolds kill the hostages.... the whole table is like WHAT?! DM has be start doing death throws while team hustles out to save me.

We get into the keep... governor says he hates us and doesnt want to work with us anymore.... I lose persuasion roll and another succeeds.... so now the governor just hates me and wont talk to me.... Super depressing night... is the DM picking on me or am I crazy?





I've had a similar situation. My Party is also somewhat comprised of noobs, but most of us actually have more experience than our DM. For much of the first couple storylines, the characters he came up with and portrayed seemed two dimensional, taking actions without thought, focusing more on fancy words than actual character developement.

Additionally he was kind of a d**k to my character a lot of the time, forcing my independent decisions to move towards his idea of the campaign by penalizing me in ways only my character would truly be effected.

However he has slowly improved, making his mobs more dynamic, trying to allow more flexibility, even apologizing for not being specific enough.


What you have here strikes me as DM rage. They amp up damage, don't give saving throughs and just kind of f**k with you when you don't do what they want.

The best way to deal with this is ask them, when it is truly obvious their stacking things, what's up. Not in a malicious way but being truly concerned about your fellow players mental condition. If they say, your not taking their hints at where the story is going, or something along those lines, explain that your trying to roleplay your character and don't want to use outside game knowledge to dictate your actions. Diligently demonstrate that you want to play the game to it's fullest extent, rather than just going through the motions.


When they give you disadvantages your character could and would have avoided, bring it up, and then shut it back down, accepting your current disadvantage while asking the rule to be reconsidered in the future

[Wulfskadi]

I prefer a style of game that rewards being smart. I prefer a style of play that has appropriate consequences to actions taken.

If players want to play heroic, or want to make tragic sacrifices, or just want to play dumb flat out dumb, they should face the appropriate consequences. Those who are dumb in dangerous situations often die, unless they are lucky. Those who make tragic sacrifices usually suffer or even die. Heroes usually die heroically.

From the way this duel scenario is described, it sounds totally appropriate for a sacrificing hero to face potential death as a result. Removing the chance of death is cheating the PC of a chance to be a self-sacrificing hero.

If your style of play encourages players to think their PCs are invincible heroes, and that actions won't have consequences, how are you going to maintain their interest in a game and/or the story?



You have to remember to also take into consideration the "Karma" factor. Characters that do acts solely based on material gain will not gain the same benefits as those who truly fight for the greater good.

There shouldn't be any big sky genie smiting your characters for stepping a couple toes out of line, but people being d**ks to other sentient humanoids should get repercussions. Murdering an innocent should warrant an investigation, stealing from a house should pose the problem of subtly disposing of the spoils without alerting law enforcement.

If you don't include realistic risk, characters will just steal willy nilly, in an unrealistic way, rather than committing to realistically staged plans to minimize risk.


As for the duel. It is perfectly realistic for a person, to enter combat against a single foe for the purpose of a boon to the victor. It has occurred throughout history countless times, and there is no reason it should not occur in a campaign. Unless you make it obvious to PC's that an opponent outclasses them in a one on one fight, they do not have a chance to create a logical and intelligent plan to defeat the foe, and it is illogical to expect them to try a mode of combat other than the one that is obviously presented before them on a golden platter (which usually means the DM want's you to do it.)

[Tanarii]

You have to remember to also take into consideration the "Karma" factor. Characters that do acts solely based on material gain will not gain the same benefits as those who truly fight for the greater good.

There shouldn't be any big sky genie smiting your characters for stepping a couple toes out of line, but people being d**ks to other sentient humanoids should get repercussions. Murdering an innocent should warrant an investigation, stealing from a house should pose the problem of subtly disposing of the spoils without alerting law enforcement.

If you don't include realistic risk, characters will just steal willy nilly, in an unrealistic way, rather than committing to realistically staged plans to minimize risk.Oh absolutely. All actions should have consequences appropriate to the action and the situation. What makes these threads go around in circles is usually a debate over exactly what consequences were appropriate to the action and situation. :smallyuk:


As for the duel. It is perfectly realistic for a person, to enter combat against a single foe for the purpose of a boon to the victor. It has occurred throughout history countless times, and there is no reason it should not occur in a campaign. Unless you make it obvious to PC's that an opponent outclasses them in a one on one fight, they do not have a chance to create a logical and intelligent plan to defeat the foe, and it is illogical to expect them to try a mode of combat other than the one that is obviously presented before them on a golden platter (which usually means the DM want's you to do it.)Why PCs should expect they can win a duel they are challenged to? Or even live through it, unless it is explicitly a non-lethal duel? Which is something you should damn well ask, instead of assuming. OTOH I don't know enough about this particular adventure. It's entirely possible it was presented or heavily implied it was a non-lethal duel, and I'm just unaware of it. In which case ... fair point.

Edit: Clearly it's not really an either for how to play. I just tend to react to Malifice's (and other's) hard line positions on many things by jumping to the opposite. It's easy to do that in a forum debate, instead of focusing on just pointing out that it's a hard line position the other person is taking. :smallwink:

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Still not enough for mine, but that would take some of the sting out of it. As long as I knew what I was getting into thats one thing, but I dont dictate the actions of my LG honorable Paladin with a bond of 'I protect the weak from tyrants, no matter the cost' based on a DM warning.I should have been more clear that I'd run it in such a way that the NPCs weren't looking towards the PCs to sacrifice themselves, at all. In fact, some folk might try to dissuade the PCs from sacrificing themselves, so long as the captain is up for it. That's what I was getting at with the captain. Not to say that this module is a good example, but at a certain point the only one forcing a character into slaughter is the player. You can always decide to react differently (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), in this case applauding the captain's honor and not wanting to rob him of that. Or you can decide that this is a the way you want this character's arc to end, or you want to try out something new. But IMO the key is to put the informed choice in the player's hands.

[JackPhoenix]

You know, technically the character fighting the duel would be saving only the sargeant. The hostages would be released anyway. Kinda takes some impact from that heroism.

[dev6500]

Has anyone tried making a character for the express purpose of killing Cyan Wrath? How Doable is it?

He has 17 AC, +6 to hit for 2d6+4, a dc 13 dex save 4d10 lightning breath weapon, and a action surge.

Thinking how to maximize your chance of living. Perhaps, a vhuman cleric with shield master who pops shield of faith first round?
That would net you 20 AC, ability to evade all breath weapon damage on successful save, and perhaps light domain for warding flare, shield bash shove to knock him prone...

Still seems impossible at 1st level...

[Lindonius]

Has anyone tried making a character for the express purpose of killing Cyan Wrath? How Doable is it?

He has 17 AC, +6 to hit for 2d6+4, a dc 13 dex save 4d10 lightning breath weapon, and a action surge.

Thinking how to maximize your chance of living. Perhaps, a vhuman cleric with shield master who pops shield of faith first round?
That would net you 20 AC, ability to evade all breath weapon damage on successful save, and perhaps light domain for warding flare, shield bash shove to knock him prone...

Still seems impossible at 1st level...

I mentioned how my player did it earlier in the thread. Requires level 2 though.

[JackPhoenix]

Has anyone tried making a character for the express purpose of killing Cyan Wrath? How Doable is it?

He has 17 AC, +6 to hit for 2d6+4, a dc 13 dex save 4d10 lightning breath weapon, and a action surge.

Thinking how to maximize your chance of living. Perhaps, a vhuman cleric with shield master who pops shield of faith first round?
That would net you 20 AC, ability to evade all breath weapon damage on successful save, and perhaps light domain for warding flare, shield bash shove to knock him prone...

Still seems impossible at 1st level...

Straight fight? Propably. If you could convince him to change the terms of the challenge? VHuman barbarian with Tavern Brawler, Str 16, Dex 14, Con 16. CN, because screw heroes

"You want a fair fight? Fine...but I've fought all night, and I'm just a human, I can't spit fire or **** like you. Two of us, no weapons, no magic, no such ****. You wanna face the best warrior here? Those are my terms. Otherwise, you can kill some village watchman who hasn't seen real battle until today and pretend how great you are, but we'll both know the truth. Do you accept?"

If he declines, taunt him, call him coward who's afraid of fair fight, etc. and let sargeant take this one, or fight him anyway, knowing that you'll lose. If he accepts, graple, shove prone, rage (in whatever order you feel works best), try to beat him (or strangle, depending on the description) to death with bare hands, while he's having a disadvantage, you have advantage, resistance against his punches and some extra damage to yours. If you can get Bless or Shield of Faith or something from your party before the dual, that much better, it's cheating, though.
Worst case scenario, you'll die like total badass. Best case scenario, stand up from his corpse, grin at the kobolds "That was unarmed. Should I get my sword now?"

If all goes as expected, you're looking at about 15 hp against his 57, +5 attack with advantage against AC 17 (bonus points if you convince him to take off his armor too) vs his +6 with disadvantage against AC around 15 and 1d4+5 damage vs 5/2=2 damage from him.

I wish the game haven't broke up before it started and I got to play this character.

[Giant2005]

Has anyone tried making a character for the express purpose of killing Cyan Wrath? How Doable is it?

He has 17 AC, +6 to hit for 2d6+4, a dc 13 dex save 4d10 lightning breath weapon, and a action surge.

Thinking how to maximize your chance of living. Perhaps, a vhuman cleric with shield master who pops shield of faith first round?
That would net you 20 AC, ability to evade all breath weapon damage on successful save, and perhaps light domain for warding flare, shield bash shove to knock him prone...

Still seems impossible at 1st level...

A Variant Human Cleric with Magic Initiate might be able to pull it off if he is lucky enough to survive the first round (and the DM is lenient enough to consider the Lightning Breath a "harmful spell").
First turn cast Witch Bolt (gained via Magic Initiate), second turn cast Sanctuary. Third turn +, hope that your AC and Sanctuary keep you alive long enough for Witch Bolt to take him out.

[Pex]

Actually the players can absolutely choose not to help the town.

Similarly nothing forces them to be the ones to step up and fight, indeed one of the players fights as the sergeant if nobody is willing or able to be the champion. I would think only a Fighter or Barbarian would have a real chance of winning the combat.

That's the problem and point. Of course they can choose not to help the town. That means they're choosing not to be the Heroes who try to save the day and instead be CN murdering hobos who care nothing about the plot.

Edit: I can accept the possibility this is a scenario of a badly written module instead of a DM being a jerk. The module encounter is a railroad with a specific ending of the PC is not dead, just badly wounded. It's possible an inexperienced DM could overlook that. However, accepting that the module is at fault, it reinforces my opinion that 5E encourages tyrannical DM behavior. Not cause it, encourage it in terms of teaching new players how to DM, and I find that disappointing.

[RickAllison]

That's the problem and point. Of course they can choose not to help the town. That means they're choosing not to be the Heroes who try to save the day and instead be CN murdering hobos who care nothing about the plot.

Edit: I can accept the possibility this is a scenario of a badly written module instead of a DM being a jerk. The module encounter is a railroad with a specific ending of the PC is not dead, just badly wounded. It's possible an inexperienced DM could overlook that. However, accepting that the module is at fault, it reinforces my opinion that 5E encourages tyrannical DM behavior. Not cause it, encourage it in terms of teaching new players how to DM, and I find that disappointing.

The bias is strong with this one.

Deferring to the sergeant isn't being a CN murderhobo, it is accepting that discretion is the better part of valor. The PCs are exhausted and their resources depleted, and it is evident that there is a very real risk of death in this duel. Allowing the captain/sergeant to take the duel might look like a good choice. He could be far fresher due to directing forces rather than fighting directly. And if he is not able to win, then it is just as well because now the PCs are still alive to stop the cult.

Really, some people need to learn that there is a difference between being Lawful Stupid and being a Hero. Living to fight another day is a time-honored trope because it works.

[Pex]

The bias is strong with this one.

Deferring to the sergeant isn't being a CN murderhobo, it is accepting that discretion is the better part of valor. The PCs are exhausted and their resources depleted, and it is evident that there is a very real risk of death in this duel. Allowing the captain/sergeant to take the duel might look like a good choice. He could be far fresher due to directing forces rather than fighting directly. And if he is not able to win, then it is just as well because now the PCs are still alive to stop the cult.

Really, some people need to learn that there is a difference between being Lawful Stupid and being a Hero. Living to fight another day is a time-honored trope because it works.

Being biased doesn't invalidate the opinion.

It is poor DMing to set the PCs against a foe they cannot defeat* just to kill the PC on purpose. That is what this module does but has the failsafe that the PC is not to be killed. A novice DM could overlook that in preparation or forget it in the heat of the moment. The tyrannical DM ignores it and relishes the idea a PC will die to prove how weak they are. A learning DM could interpret the scenario to mean all BBEGS should be impossible for the PCs to defeat until such time the DM permits it.

*Not counting for blind luck, but then you'll get other threads of DMs complaining a player one-shot the BBEG with a spell or something ruining several weeks of adventure preparation.

[RickAllison]

Being biased doesn't invalidate the opinion.

It is poor DMing to set the PCs against a foe they cannot defeat* just to kill the PC on purpose. That is what this module does but has the failsafe that the PC is not to be killed. A novice DM could overlook that in preparation or forget it in the heat of the moment. The tyrannical DM ignores it and relishes the idea a PC will die to prove how weak they are. A learning DM could interpret the scenario to mean all BBEGS should be impossible for the PCs to defeat until such time the DM permits it.

*Not counting for blind luck, but then you'll get other threads of DMs complaining a player one-shot the BBEG with a spell or something ruining several weeks of adventure preparation.

I never said it invalidated it. If it did, I would have brushed it off with a snide remark and then moved on. Instead I answered it with my thoughts. Heck, I'm sure there is some bias coming through with my blurbs! We can still be civil (although I sometimes can't help cracking wise, and I apologize if it offended you:smallsmile: that was not my intent).

[unwise]

Was the DM clear that the mayor might have been being irrational? Those were his people that just got slaughtered, it would take a strong individual to not just lash out at somebody. A person being angry at the fire fighter for failing to save their loved one from a burning building might not be an overly unusual reaction.

Still as a DM I would not have done it, but I might have if I wanted the PCs to hate the mayor for some reason, or introduce some RP for him coming around in the end.

To me it seems like the DM was trying to have a dramatic moment and the PC is just like mine and tried to ruin it and strip it of all drama. DMs eventually get sick of players doing this. It does not help the game if you just try and attack every villian before they can deliver plot, context or drama, especially in a set up where it is clear that an honourable duel is about to take place.

Reading between the lines it really seems like the OP pissed off the DM and 'cheated' by attacking the guy before the duel had begun, and faced the consequences of that. The mayor was right to be pissed if the druids cheating cost the lives of all of his people.

[Tanarii]

It is poor DMing to set the PCs against a foe they cannot defeat* just to kill the PC on purpose. That is what this module does but has the failsafe that the PC is not to be killed. I disagree. You're either missing a qualification, or you're assuming it. If you set the PCs against a foe they cannot defeat just to kill them on purpose if it's going to kill them regardless of player choice, then it's probably not the greatest DMing.

It's pretty clear from the way this duel has been described, the players have a choice if they want to accept it or not. Not only that, it apparently explicitly doesn't try to kill the PC on purpose. Instead it puts them at death saving throws with one failed save.

[Democratus]

It seems that there is a strange assumption that the PCs should be victorious in all of their encounters.

Without defeat you are denying the heroic story arc of coming back from being beaten and overcoming the odds. Without a real chance of PC death there is no narrative tension.

I'm sure there are excellent games out there where the PCs are never in any existential danger. But it doesn't make you a "bad DM" for trying to create some.

[Vogonjeltz]

Which almost invariably is an equally douche move by the players.

They could just create a bunch of evilly aligned murder hobos and join the cult instead of fighting it. In some campaigns with an awesome DM that could be kind of fun (reminds me of a spacemaster campaign I once had where we helped the wrong guys in our first encounter and instead of joining the galactic police as planned, gunned them down and spent a year long campaign working alongside the very space pirates the DM planned on us fighting).

But its not really them buying in to the plot and the adventure path now is it?

If thats the tone of the campaign [go where you want, help the town if you want, leave if you want, help the cult if you want] and the campaign continues regardles, then thats a different story.

Perhaps so, but Mellack asked who would run toward a dragon attacking a town.

I was just pointing out, there's room (in both scenarios) for characters to say to themselves: That is ridiculous, I'm not going into what looks like overwhelming odds. Not that they would necessarily join the cult, but the module takes into account the possibility that the players make a judgment call about what is or isn't reasonable of them to attempt, and decide not to do it.

Alternatively, there's also room for the characters having made that same assessment of the danger to be heroic, put their lives on the line, and roll the dice.

I advocate for the opportunity for a player to truly put themselves out there, and risk it all. And yeah, I'm one of those people who isn't satisfied with a character I didn't think about for a while and put effort into creating, so it's never 'fun' to lose a character, but it also wouldn't be 'fun' if all my opponents were paper tigers. What have I accomplished through good play if there was never any risk of failure? Nothing. That's a victory that tastes of ashes.


First I'd just like to say that after reading the OP's initial thread... that his character didn't die. He wasn't mad at the damage dealt by the half-dragon. He was mad at the ruling that all of the prisoners were killed and that the major was mad at them for getting them killed.

I think we can chalk up that outcome purely to the action to jump the gun and attack Cyanwrath mid sentence.

"He says yes and starts talking again... I turn into bear form and get suprise attack round."

The character is clearly described as being a dragonkin of his word and prone to having the hostages killed if there's any funny business, like attacking him mid-sentence before either party has squared off.

Mandarin's Druid made reckless mistake that cost several people their lives, that's why the Mayor isn't forgiving him, because he's like a hotshot detective/racecar driver/superhero whose reckless behavior got several citizens killed needlessly.

[Saintsqc]

It seems that there is a strange assumption that the PCs should be victorious in all of their encounters.

Without defeat you are denying the heroic story arc of coming back from being beaten and overcoming the odds. Without a real chance of PC death there is no narrative tension.

I'm sure there are excellent games out there where the PCs are never in any existential danger. But it doesn't make you a "bad DM" for trying to create some.

This




Some posts about being a jerk DM if you kill PCs in this encounter

Dude, you are taking this waaayyy too seriously.

First of all, I play PCs and I dont DM games. In this situation, it would be totally fine for me to lose my character. What makes this move heroic is that the probability of death is high. This half dragon, who is several levels higher than my PC, just one-shot my character ? Damn, I guess I shouldnt have accept the duel then !

It's not a jerk move at all. The DM is playing fair and that's great. As long as it goes both way, I'm happy with that. It also boost the DM's credibility by a lot. Anyway, it's like IRL, doing the good thing doesnt always equal the best results. Personnally, I like it when an encounter is challenging. Knowing that my DM doesnt fock around makes thing even better. It will makes other bold moves even more heroic.

I just lost a character in a duel against a half dragon ? What a big deal...I'll just spend the next few days thinking about my next character...

[Pex]

The problem is not a PC being defeated or even getting killed. The problem is the railroad of putting a PC in a can't win situation and then killing him for it. In this case, the railroad is a PC wanting to be heroic to save the villagers, which is not an unreasonable thing of wanting to be. The module partly redeems itself by specifically saying the PC isn't killed, instead getting healed and rewarded. The DM in question either Honest True erred in overlooking or forgot about that or Jerked DMed in purposely ignoring it, and for DMing in the general case I would never want to play with a DM who relishes in ignoring it to purposely kill my character to prove a point.

The OP wanted to know if the DM Honest True erred or Jerked DMed. Since the module set up the scenario it was not a Jerk DM creation, so a Jerk DMing could only be ignoring the text. There is enough reasonable doubt to suggest the DM overlooked or forgot. More context of the DM's style is needed. We have a follow-up of what happened after, giving us more evidence the DM Honest True erred. Maybe or maybe not the module should have specifically stated a PC fighting the BBEG is not to be killed despite whatever rules of the game, but it wouldn't have hurt if it did.

[Tanarii]

The problem is the railroad of putting a PC in a can't win situation and then killing him for it. In this case, the railroad is a PC wanting to be heroic to save the villagers, which is not an unreasonable thing of wanting to be.It's not a railroad if the players have a choice.

Edit: And in this case, by the sound of it, the players not only have a choice but the module even tells you the results of each possible decision ... to accept the duel or not to accept it. If so, there's not only a clear choice, but the results are written into the module itself. In that case, it's not even close to a railroad.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You know, technically the character fighting the duel would be saving only the sargeant. The hostages would be released anyway. Kinda takes some impact from that heroism.That was true far before my little modifications; I just made it more obvious.

[Mellack]

The problem is not a PC being defeated or even getting killed. The problem is the railroad of putting a PC in a can't win situation and then killing him for it. In this case, the railroad is a PC wanting to be heroic to save the villagers, which is not an unreasonable thing of wanting to be. The module partly redeems itself by specifically saying the PC isn't killed, instead getting healed and rewarded. The DM in question either Honest True erred in overlooking or forgot about that or Jerked DMed in purposely ignoring it, and for DMing in the general case I would never want to play with a DM who relishes in ignoring it to purposely kill my character to prove a point.


The OP was not killed. They were punished for attacking before both members were ready by having the hostages killed and therefore angering the mayor.

[Malifice]

first of all, I play PCs and I dont DM games. In this situation, it would be totally fine for me to lose my character. What makes this move heroic is that the probability of death is high. This half dragon, who is several levels higher than my PC, just one-shot my character ? Damn, I guess I shouldnt have accept the duel then !

Exactly. This is what you shouldnt be teaching players, and why murderhobism is a thing. You want to be encouraging players to heroically fight the cult, not encouraging them not to.


I just lost a character in a duel against a half dragon ? What a big deal...I'll just spend the next few days thinking about my next character...

Your DM has just called you and asked if you want to be part of a heroic adventure pitting you against the Cult of the Dragon. He has asked you to create heroic characters with an agenda against said cult, and work this into your background. Youve spend hours detailing a backstory for your character that ties into his campaign world and the plot.

Then he railroads you into a fight you cant refuse with a vastly superior foe and kills the PC (despite the encounter being designed to leave you on 1 failed death save, and with a recurring villian).

Its a jerk move. No ifs buts or maybes.

Its no different to:

DM: Hey Steve, im thinking of running a heroic themed campaign. I'll need a detailed character backstory. Here is a campaign guide. It'll be set in Faerun on the Sword Coast, based around the events of the 'Baldurs gate' video game series. It commences in Berghost. Its designed for primarily good aligned PCs that have an agenda against the Iron Throne.
Steve: Sounds like fun! [goes away, reads the guide, selects a background for the adventure, and maps out his characters family, church, and his reason for being in Bereghost and having a chip on his shoulder against the Iron Throne to begin the campaign. I.e he engages with the plot and the narrative set out by the DM]

A week later...
Steve: Righeo DM. My character is Loras Brightheart, an honorable LG Paladin from Waterdeep. The third eldest male of a noble family, he spent his early years in service to the god Torm. With his older brother set to claim the titles of his noble house, he set forth into the world to do good and spread the word of his noble deity. Word has recently reached his ears that his younger sister was killed during a raid... a raid conducted just outside of Bereghost by none other than members of the Iron Throne! He has sworn vengance against them and is in Bereghost to investigate them and end their evil. My bond is 'I go out of my way to protect children, as my failure to protect my sister haunts me'.
DM: Cool. In front of you you see a member of the Iron throne. He wears banded mail and carries a greatsword. He has several women and children before him; they are bound and gagged. He threatens to kill them if no-one accepts his challenge!
Steve: Oh... OK. [going along with the plot as presented] Well, I guess Loras steps forward and declares that the man must release the prisoners or Loras will end his evil once and for all... by the grace of Torm!
DM: Awesome! Here, have some inspiration. The man sneers, and attacks! Roll initiative. [both DM and player roll, Steve wins]. Right Steve it's your turn.
Steve: I'll warily pace around him, interposing myself between him and the prisoners, and then attack. [Rolls an 11]. Does a 16 hit?
DM: Nope, it glances off his armor.
Steve: Damn. I call out that he was lucky this time, but luck wont stop his evil for ever!
DM: Right its his turn. He laughs at you. He uses action surge and attacks you four times with his greatsword [rolls some dice] 44 points of damage. You're dead.
Steve: Wait what? Are you trolling me?
DM: Sorry bro. Thats just how the adventure is written. Whats your next character going to be?

Which would be bad enough if thats how the adventure was written, but in this case its not even that. This encounter is written in the context that the PC doesnt die, but is left on 1 failed death save, with healers nearby, a new antagonist to encounter again later, and the PC gets rewarded with XP for his bravery to stand up to an evil villian when no-one else would, and not punished for doing what the story expected him to do.

Its a jerk move. Your player has done exactly what you asked him to do, engaged with the plot as you presented it, sought to advance the narrative based on information you as the DM have presented, and then he's been murdered by an overwhelming encounter the story railroads him into fighting.

The point of the encounter is to reward the player for engaging with the plot, being heroic and standing up to the BBEG (and the organization he works for) not punish him for it.

[Lindonius]

There's a great remix for HotD here..... (This part is for the end of Chapter 1 so no spoilers for anyone who has finished that chapter.)

http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.jp/2014/09/on-hoard-of-dragon-queen-episode-i_4.html

I discovered this after I'd finished chapter 1 but have been taking ideas from it ever since then. It fixes many of the problems and adds a bit for flavour to the campaign. The author echoes many of the concerns raised here. I wouldn't go as far as saying that DMs who run the chapter as is are "jerk DMs", but it seems reasonable to suggest that this encounter needs to be adjusted to avoid potential player frustration.

[Saintsqc]

Exactly. This is what you shouldnt be teaching players.

What the heck ? What kind of game are you playing ? My DM isnt teaching me anything. Here is how a game of D&D usually goes :

You are confronted to a moral/tactical dilemna. You make decision base on a informations you have and your character personnality traits. Your DM explains the results. And it's fun.

There isnt teaching involved.

The PC has make a decision and the result was (near ?) death. It's kind of a logicial endcome when fighting a halfdragon.


You want to be encouraging players to heroically fight the cult, not encouraging them not to.


What is a hero ?
According to the dictionnary, it is :
A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

Where is heroism when there is no risk ? In a game where a prayer from some gods can patch you up...death of his character is one of the only few risks of the game.

This was a heroic move because there was risk of death...dont cry if your character die lol ! Just dont be the hero then...(play the wizard or the rogue lol).


despite the encounter being designed to leave you on 1 failed death save, and with a recurring villian

Are you serious ? The game is designed to leave you with 1 failed death save and here you are, calling DMs jerks, if the PC fails the 2 others save !? By design, the probability of death is super high ! Even the biggest fights of other campaign arent designed to let PC unconcsious with 1 failed death save.

A PC just have to be out of luck for a few rounds and death happen.


Which would be bad enough if thats how the adventure was written, but in this case its not even that. This encounter is written in the context that the PC doesnt die, but is left on 1 failed death save, with healers nearby, a new antagonist to encounter again later, and the PC gets rewarded with XP for his bravery to stand up to an evil villian when no-one else would, and not punished for doing what the story expected him to do.

When you are left on 1 failed death save, it's plausible that you die...Even if there is healers nearby (they have 12 seconds to stabilize someone out of reach).

The PC gets rewarded with XP for his bravery...if he survives hehe. But wait...isnt it the purpose of this game ?




Dude...it's game. Do you act like that IRL at a table ? Being pissed off at your DM because your character is dead ?? You play a hero who fights monsters with swords and stuff. Sometimes, this character die. Dont call a DM a jerk when he just try to make his game fun for his friend...

[Malifice]

What the heck ? What kind of game are you playing ? My DM isnt teaching me anything. Here is how a game of D&D usually goes :

You are confronted to a moral/tactical dilemna. You make decision base on a informations you have and your character personnality traits. Your DM explains the results. And it's fun.

There isnt teaching involved.

The PC has make a decision and the result was (near ?) death. It's kind of a logicial endcome when fighting a halfdragon.



What is a hero ?
According to the dictionnary, it is :
A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

Where is heroism when there is no risk ? In a game where a prayer from some gods can patch you up...death of his character is one of the only few risks of the game.

This was a heroic move because there was risk of death...dont cry if your character die lol ! Just dont be the hero then...(play the wizard or the rogue lol).



Are you serious ? The game is designed to leave you with 1 failed death save and here you are, calling DMs jerks, if the PC fails the 2 others save !? By design, the probability of death is super high ! Even the biggest fights of other campaign arent designed to let PC unconcsious with 1 failed death save.

A PC just have to be out of luck for a few rounds and death happen.



When you are left on 1 failed death save, it's plausible that you die...Even if there is healers nearby (they have 12 seconds to stabilize someone out of reach).

The PC gets rewarded with XP for his bravery...if he survives hehe. But wait...isnt it the purpose of this game ?




Dude...it's game. Do you act like that IRL at a table ? Being pissed off at your DM because your character is dead ?? You play a hero who fights monsters with swords and stuff. Sometimes, this character die. Dont call a DM a jerk when he just try to make his game fun for his friend...

Lol. 'Making his game fun for his friend'.

Wanna come to my place for a game of DnD? I expect detailed character backstories that tie your character into the campaign. A page long give or take.

You'll be soloing a CR4 as your first encounter.

[Democratus]

Lol. 'Making his game fun for his friend'.

Wanna come to my place for a game of DnD? I expect detailed character backstories that tie your character into the campaign. A page long give or take.

You'll be soloing a CR4 as your first encounter.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this entire premise.

I can write up a 3 page backstory for a new character very quickly. And I'll be invested in and attached to that character just as much.

Meanwhile, the party has a villain that took the life of their companion. That's the stuff of great storytelling!

[smcmike]

I'm with Malifice, even if he sometimes presents his case a bit strongly.

For the game to be fun for me as a player, I need there to be a path for success. If the scenario presented is to either get my character killed in an unwinnable fight or to sacrifice his integrity, that's not much fun, and it erodes trust between the player and the DM.

I see people badmouthing heroic characters - really? Heroes are fun to play, and easy to DM for. They have intrinsic motivation to face the challenges you give them, and are happy to latch onto plot hooks like dramatic showdowns.

There is a difference between heroic and stupid. Accepting plot hooks and trying your best to solve them with the resources you have is not stupid, and should not be punished, unless you want your players to stop accepting plot hooks.

[Malifice]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this entire premise.

I can write up a 3 page backstory for a new character very quickly. And I'll be invested in and attached to that character just as much.

Cool. Now you can solo another CR4.

:smallwink:

[Giant2005]

For the game to be fun for me as a player, I need there to be a path for success. If the scenario presented is to either get my character killed in an unwinnable fight or to sacrifice his integrity, that's not much fun, and it erodes trust between the player and the DM.

I agree that facing impossible encounters isn't much fun, but it has nothing at all to do with the DM. The DM didn't design the encounter - he is simply doing as the book dictates. The trust between the player and the DM cannot erode, because that trust isn't a factor.

[smcmike]

I agree that facing impossible encounters isn't much fun, but it has nothing at all to do with the DM. The DM didn't design the encounter - he is simply doing as the book dictates. The trust between the player and the DM cannot erode, because that trust isn't a factor.

I was speaking more generally, rather than about this specific scenario, where the OP didn't actually even die.

Regardless, from the player's perspective, the book and the DM are the same, and distinguishing between the two is pointless, unless your goal is to assign blame. My goal is to discuss fun challenges. It's harder to have fun if you don't trust the book/DM to be conducive to that fun.

[Malifice]

I agree that facing impossible encounters isn't much fun, but it has nothing at all to do with the DM. The DM didn't design the encounter - he is simply doing as the book dictates. The trust between the player and the DM cannot erode, because that trust isn't a factor.

1) The book clearly implies that the DM should not kill the PC, but should leave him on 1 failed death save, with a team of medics and a NPC with healing potions ready to bring him back.

2) If an adventure told you to jump off a cliff, would you?

[Fighting_Ferret]

First off, I reiterate again... the PC in the OP's example didn't die. They were knocked unconscious and the DM didn't give him any failed death saving throws. That character was revived. So where is all this he died coming from. Because of his not-so-honorable actions (he attacked first without warning) he was penalized by having all the prisoners killed, and then they mayor hating him.

His second post had them in the cultist camp, and the group was doing fine and having fun.

If your argument for a CR4 adversary who calls out for a 1v1 with someone is too hard... yes it is, but as was pointed out... some people have managed to win that unwinnable scenario... it is possible, even if the probability is very low. If the big bad guy was easier... that probability would rise. If he acted with mercy (by not felling the PC or NPC who accepted his challenge), than why is he attacking the town anyways?

If the scenario was reversed, and a PC called out an enemy to fight them 1v1, how would you resolve that as a DM? My guess is it would be to the death.

Malice, you mentioned Baldur's Gate in an example... funny enough, that game points the PC to the Friendly Arm Inn and a higher level mage enemy that I'm sure has killed anyone who followed the game's advise to go straight there after the opening scene at least a few times, that is if running into a wolf in the first area didn't kill them, or a random with multiple bandit archers on their way to the second/third area. Sometimes discretion is the"... better part of valor", as Khalid would say... which I believe was also an option presented in the HotDQ scenario involving the fight with the halfdragon.

[Waazraath]

I can write up a 3 page backstory for a new character very quickly.

Not everybody can, of course. And if you spend a few free hours, days in a row, besides the job, family, and other obligations, to create something cool, it's definitely not cool to see it die very early in a game, especially in something that feels as a death trap. (and yeah, I know the OP's char didn't die in the encounter, but somewhere buried in this thread was a character that was, if I'm not mistaken).

[Tanarii]

Exactly. This is what you shouldnt be teaching players, and why murderhobism is a thing. You want to be encouraging players to heroically fight the cult, not encouraging them not to.Why shouldn't I be teaching players that? Why do I want to encourage them to heroically fight the cult? Why am I not letting the players decide what to do based on their own character personalities?


Your DM has just called you and asked if you want to be part of a heroic adventure pitting you against the Cult of the Dragon. He has asked you to create heroic characters with an agenda against said cult, and work this into your background. Youve spend hours detailing a backstory for your character that ties into his campaign world and the plot.

Then he railroads you into a fight you cant refuse with a vastly superior foe and kills the PC (despite the encounter being designed to leave you on 1 failed death save, and with a recurring villian).

Its a jerk move. No ifs buts or maybes.I don't see any railroading, so long as the PC is given a choice. Even if the choice is: Do I want to be heroic, and possibly die in the process?

From my point of view, if the game or campaign is one in which being heroic includes no significant chance of death for doing so, then the DM needs to let the players know that in advance. Because that's one hell of an assumption for the players to make otherwise. If the players just assume that is the case, and it's not, then that's on them. But there's a reason I have that point of view: I'm inclined to see the game as Combat-as-War.

So OTOH, I can understand people mired in the Combat-as-Sport mindset might find it a sudden shock if that's taken away from them, and suddenly they're faced with 'unfair' fights, or even actually face death. The main thing I'm getting out of this is that Combat-as-Sport players can't handle the idea of Combat-as-War without explicit fair warning that it's in place. And that a DM is a "jerk" if he doesn't do that.


What the heck ? What kind of game are you playing ? My DM isnt teaching me anything. Here is how a game of D&D usually goes :

You are confronted to a moral/tactical dilemna. You make decision base on a informations you have and your character personnality traits. Your DM explains the results. And it's fun.The D&D you play sounds a lot like the D&D I play in this regard.


Wanna come to my place for a game of DnD? I expect detailed character backstories that tie your character into the campaign. A page long give or take.I see it's personal style for how we RP time. As a DM or Player, I want a few lines of character motivation. The rest of character development occurs in play, based on getting in character from those motivations. IMO too much backstory detracts from that, because character history isn't character motivation.

[BiblioRook]

In our encounter with Cyanwrath it was our Ranger who took him up on hi challenge... died in one hit. Like not just knocked out, dead as in roll-a-new-character dead with no saves due to taking excessive damage. We kind of joke about it now, but it was a bitter way to start off the game.

Reposting this because it seems to be a lot more the basis behind the arguments against this module then the OP's (who's experience was thankfully much more 'by the book' as it were)

Considering such talk like 'Lol, dying is just part of the game' and 'that would teach PC to not want to be heroic' and other such, I really feel like I need to point out something I left out in the first post. If it were *I* that died in this encounter I probably wouldn't have considered it all that much of a deal, I would still be super pissed about it but I have been playing D&D for years and can accept that these things can happen. But as it happens it was our Ranger who was killed was, as with most of the group (hence the pre-made level 1 campaign) being introduced to the game for the first time. I mean, clearly some of you think different (and have voiced such) but typically I can't see being killed off in the first chapter in any way a positive experience for someone new to the game, much less an experience that would encourage them to continue playing in the future...


Why shouldn't I be teaching players that? Why do I want to encourage them to heroically fight the cult? Why am I not letting the players decide what to do based on their own character personalities?

Because this is literally the entire point of the campaign. If your players don't want to be heroes and/or don't feel like fighting the cult? That's fine, retire HotDQ and move on to playing something different because if your players are ether of these things they really shouldn't be in this campaign.

I know people are always seeking to avoid the dreaded 'railroading' conundrum, but this is a pre-made module which is almost the textbook of railroading, it's different then if the DM made the campaign scratch and has the luxury to accommodate the PC's every wilm and fickle motivation but you have to consider that maybe there are DMs that don't have the time to put in making an expansive world for his PCs to sandbox in or a new DM testing the waters at running a game for the first time. Sometimes railroading is inevitable but people seem quick to automatically label it as a 'bad thing' when really it's not.

[Tanarii]

Because this is literally the entire point of the campaign. If your players don't want to be heroes and/or don't feel like fighting the cult? That's fine, retire HotDQ and move on to playing something different because if your players are ether of these things they really shouldn't be in this campaign. hmm. I guess I'm not familiar enough with the campaign. I didn't realize the only possible motivation the characters could have to fight the cult was to be heroic.

Well, in that case, if your only possible motivation to fight the cult is to be heroic, and the implication is you won't face death for doing so, then yeah: I can see where it would feel kind of railroad-y to be forced into a duel that will almost certainly defeat you and kill you.

Except that doesn't seem to be what's happening. It seems like those who assume you won't face death are in fact justified in that belief. Because the duel isn't designed to kill you, from the way it's been presented here.

[Warwick]

Hoard of the Dairy Queen is on rails in a pretty big way. It relies very heavily on the PCs just going along with fighting the cult kind of... because that's what the adventure says they should do. It's one of the reasons I didn't think much of it when I played it (hell, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the PCs to approach Greenest, see Lenny the dragon and decide to wait until he leaves before going further). And I have to agree with the above poster that killing off someone's character early on with a super NPC is liable to leave a bitter taste, regardless of expectations about the campaign as a whole.



So OTOH, I can understand people mired in the Combat-as-Sport mindset might find it a sudden shock if that's taken away from them, and suddenly they're faced with unfair fights. The main thing I'm getting out of this is that Combat-as-Sport players can't handle the idea of Combat-as-War without explicit fair warning that it's in place. And that a DM is a "jerk" if he doesn't do that.

Yeah, if the GM abruptly violates the table's social contract, they are a jerk. Especially if it's in a rather punitive/destructive manner. Abrupt shifts in the story logic from cinematic to realistic will catch players flat-footed, the same as if it were reversed.


suddenly they're faced with unfair fights

The GM controls the fights; they're basically as fair or unfair as the GM makes them. (I promise you that even if your GM is running an explicit "Combat-as-War" campaign, they're still pulling their punches, especially with 5e's bounded accuracy.)

[Mith]

What I find odd about this whole thing is that the 1v1 fight was a trade for the hostages, so the hostages shouldn't be in danger at this point. Any group assault would be retaliated against with the rest of the army. So that's my confusion with the OP scenario.

As for the whole "unavoidable death"? I find this particular module a bit odd because it's an introductory module. As such the killing of characters right off the back seems a bit unwise. There is a difference once you've been playing for a bit, but I feel like a scene like that, Cyanwrath should make a statement of "Not even worth my time." and leave. He's doing this for bravado and to strike fear in the town. He really doesn't have a stake in the fight at this point. It's hardly a warm up exercise for him.

Granted, this point of view comes from my experience as a DM where I threw a much heavier encounter at my players than I probably should have when there was no real hint of them needing to conserve the meager resources they had until the fight. I just gave the big guy half hit points because he triggered a ward in the temple they were breaking into that burned him up pretty bad. It was a close fight dropping a few characters, but that was more that at that point I had the boss dropping characters and then leaving them on the basis that he could kill them all easily once they are all dead.

[Tanarii]

Hoard of the Dairy Queen is on rails in a pretty big way. It relies very heavily on the PCs just going along with fighting the cult kind of... because that's what the adventure says they should do. That sounds a bit more like railroad. The way it seems to be used with the duel, tying it into play style, much less so. Although the duel sounds to me like its a CaS duel (doesn't kill you even though it probably should) but in a way that will be shocking to CaS players. That has to be intentional.



Yeah, if the GM abruptly violates the table's social contract, they are a jerk. Especially if it's in a rather punitive/destructive manner. Abrupt shifts in the story logic from cinematic to realistic will catch players flat-footed, the same as if it were reversed.Oh, I agree. If you're sitting at a CaS table with all your CaS friends, and suddenly it turns into a CaW game, that's a jerk move.

But sitting down at a random DMs table and expecting CaS protections to be in play? The DM is a bit of a jerk for not being clear on how his campaign works, but the player is one one making the assumption his PC wouldn't ever be outclassed and possibly face death if he chooses to fight.




The GM controls the fights; they're basically as fair or unfair as the GM makes them, and players can really only complain or quit if they're unsatisfied with how they're being handled. (I promise you that even if your GM is running an explicit "Combat-as-War" campaign, they're still pulling their punches.)Yes. I used the term unfair not as a fact, but as a perception by the players.

[Fighting_Ferret]

BiblioRook, how did your Ranger die, if you don't mind me asking? Just trying to see how it happened is all.

[BiblioRook]

The GM controls the fights; they're basically as fair or unfair as the GM makes them. (I promise you that even if your GM is running an explicit "Combat-as-War" campaign, they're still pulling their punches, especially with 5e's bounded accuracy.)

People always seem to be so angry at the idea of a DM fudging roles, I never understood this. Granted yes if a DM fudges roles against the players that's horrible, but that's something else all-together and not really what's relevant here. I mean, the DM controls the fights, the DM controls everything, he rolls behind a screen for a reason. I was always of the believe that a DM's job isn't just to play the roles that the players aren't but to facilitate game-play as a whole. If the dice roll in a way that don't facilitate gameplay? Change 'em. This is kind of in the same vein as railroading I guess as people might think it takes away the whole infinite possibilities of the game where anything could happen. To that I say 'eh'. Now granted I'm not suggesting that this should be overused or make for such situations were risk is meaningless, I'm talking about curbing extreme cases that would make for unsatisfying gameplay for the players. Like, oh, being one-shotted by the Boss in the first round of combat or something.
Of course if you are the kind of DM that rolls without a screen out in the open obviously this isn't really an option. Just saying though I don't understand why people are so against this sort of thing when it's really only to the benefit of the players.


hmm. I guess I'm not familiar enough with the campaign. I didn't realize the only possible motivation the characters could have to fight the cult was to be heroic.
Don't want be a hero? What about being a mercenary? Considering you are getting paid for this regardless if you are doing it out of the goodness of your heart or out of the prospect of a reward this is really potatoe/potato and still doesn't really change anything and the fact remains that the choice really is ether you fight the cult or you sit on your thumbs and do nothing.


BiblioRook, how did your Ranger die, if you don't mind me asking? Just trying to see how it happened is all.
Don't remember the specific details as this was over a month ago but basically multiple crits in one round and the 'massive damage' ruling to be denied death saves. I actually had no idea of the 'Cyanwrath downs the player but leaves them at one failed death save' thing before this thread. I mean, considering my opinion above it's very hard for me to see much difference in saying "Cyanwrath hits you for x damage, you die outright" and "Cyanwrath hits you for x damage, you fall unconscious". Heck, if we are talking about optional rules isn't there one that also lets you to subdue an opponent with the finishing blow rather then killing them?
Granted it could be argued that Cyanwrath might not be the kind of person that would willfully spare his opponent, but I would counter that by saying he also likely wouldn't be inclined to go all-out fully against someone clearly not at his level...

[EvanescentHero]

Heck, if we are talking about optional rules isn't there one that also lets you to subdue an opponent with the finishing blow rather then killing them?

That's a base rule, not an optional one.

[Tanarii]

Don't want be a hero? What about being a mercenary? Considering you are getting paid for this regardless if you are doing it out of the goodness of your heart or out of the prospect of a reward this is really potatoe/potato and still doesn't really change anything and the fact remains that the choice really is ether you fight the cult or you sit on your thumbs and do nothing.Fight a cult as a general directive, and engage in a one on one duel directly and personally, are two very different things. I certainly wouldn't expect a mercenary PC to accept a one on one duel, for little profit and at great risk to life and limb, without motivation other than "be a hero". Pride might do it of course, for the right mercenary character.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

What the heck ? What kind of game are you playing ? My DM isnt teaching me anything. DMs set expectations, which players learn through communication and game play. In this case, murdering your character for doing what the module (and hence the DM) are obviously pointing at is bad form, and sets very bad expectations for following what the DM/module want you to do in the future.

The PC is being lured into a death trap both in the meta game and (for good-aligned folk) in character. There are two solutions: Remove the "death trap" element by having the character just get his ass beat - i.e., Cyanwrath doesn't use his breath weapon and elects to merely KO the PC (entirely within the rules) - or you make it very explicit that this is a "fall on your sword" moment, and that even heroic PCs shouldn't feel compelled to sacrifice their own lives.

[Vogonjeltz]

The module partly redeems itself by specifically saying the PC isn't killed, instead getting healed and rewarded.

In point of fact the module says they are healed if they survive, but it also has Cyanwrath hit the character once after they are downed.

Melee attacks on incapacitated characters are, if I recall correctly, automatic critical hits. 4d6+4 damage averages to 18, that's only instantly lethal to a character with 9 or fewer hit points max. For example, a Druid with a low constitution modifier.


Lol. 'Making his game fun for his friend'.

Wanna come to my place for a game of DnD? I expect detailed character backstories that tie your character into the campaign. A page long give or take.

You'll be soloing a CR4 as your first encounter.

Except that's not even close to the first encounter.

The very first quest encounter of the module grants about 850 xp, but can easily go higher. If the party engages in 4 such encounters, they will hit level 3 before the end of the night, and the fight with Cyanwrath.

A level 3 Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, or Ranger could plausibly win out against Cyanwrath, and they have enough hit points that it's entirely implausible to get killed by him.

And sure, one could use the milestones xp variant, but then it's artificially increasing the difficulty of the game.

[gfishfunk]

We were at level 2 for this encounter and used subtle things to influence it. I believe our cleric put something on our champion and concentrated on it (I forget what, and we probably played it incorrect anyway), and we got terribly rolled. But true: not the first actual encounter.

[Malifice]

Why shouldn't I be teaching players that? Why do I want to encourage them to heroically fight the cult?

Becuase thats the whole point of the adventure. If your players are not heroically fighting the cult of the dragon, the'yre not doing the adventure.

If theyre not heroically fighting the cult, they wander off into the sunset leaving Greenest to its fate, and the aventure ends.

Killing a PC at the start of the encounter by railroading him into a fight with a vastly OP NPC is a terrible idea without any other context, but doing it in a manner where the PC is simply attempting to advance the plot as presented to him by the DM is a douche move.

DM: Create a heroic character that opposes the Cult.
Player: [Hours later] Done. [Regales the DM with an epic backstory tying him into the campaign world and plot]
DM: You see a Cult member calling you out to a heroic challenge. He threatens to kill helpless children if you dont respond.
Player: Oh.. OK then. I'll heroically answer that challenge.
DM: He kills you.

Its a jerk move.


Why am I not letting the players decide what to do based on their own character personalities?


Presumably youve told them you intend on ruinning HotDQ. Youve shown them the new backgrounds that tie them into the campaign, and given them a short precis on what the adventure path is. Theyve then gone away and designed characters tailored for this adventure; PCs with a reason to heroically challenge the Cult and stop their evil. Theyve tied those PCs into the story, plot and the campaign.


I don't see any railroading, so long as the PC is given a choice. Even if the choice is: Do I want to be heroic, and possibly die in the process?

But thats [I]not the point of the encounter. If you cant see the railroading here, I really cant help you. The adventure expects the PCs to answer the challenge, and in actual play (as evidenced by this thread) 99 percent of PCs accept that challenge.

The remaining 1 percent? Murderhobos gonna murderhobo.


From my point of view, if the game or campaign is one in which being heroic includes no significant chance of death for doing so, then the DM needs to let the players know that in advance. Because that's one hell of an assumption for the players to make otherwise. If the players just assume that is the case, and it's not, then that's on them. But there's a reason I have that point of view: I'm inclined to see the game as Combat-as-War.

The PCs have plenty of opportunity to die. I'm not aruing you should remove the threat of death.

Im arguing that you should not require a 'heroic PC who opposes the cult' buy in from your PCs [explicitly or implicitly], then plot railroad any PCs that do buy in, into a fight with a vastly superior foe, and then murder hem for doing the right thing and going along with the plot as presented.

I'd walk from such a campaign. So would others.

And this isnt a case of me 'not being cool with the death of a PC'. Its the manner in which it happened. If a PC does the heroic thing, and is working towards the plot and the the social contract of the game, they should get a small element of plot immunity (as this encounter explicity expects the DM to do).

The encounter is designed to leave the PC wounded, but a hero, with an antagonist to boot.

Note how even killing Cyanwraith doesnt matter as the adventure replaces him later on even if the PCs kill him? HE gets plot immunity. So should the PC in this encounter in my view.

Makes that PCs epic showdown against Cyanwraith later on in the adventure all the more meaningful. It gives the PC who got clobbered a vendetta against him. It drives the story forward, provides an antagonist, rewards the PC (with potions and XP) for doing the right thing, and rewards the player for enaging with the plot and advancing the story.


I see it's personal style for how we RP time. As a DM or Player, I want a few lines of character motivation.

I'd ask you for more. I would want to know your bonds, ideals and motivations and reasons for being in Greenest. I would want to know about your familiy, why and how you became a member of [class X] and where you [normally] live.

At a minimum.

[Mellack]

Becuase thats the whole point of the adventure. If your players are not heroically fighting the cult of the dragon, the'yre not doing the adventure.

If theyre not heroically fighting the cult, they wander off into the sunset leaving Greenest to its fate, and the aventure ends.


There are other possible reasons for playing out the adventure other than being goody-goody self-sacrificing heroes. They could be greedy robbers hoping to steal the big treasure haul the cultists have taken. They could be rival cultists, or maybe devil-worshipers who don't want competition. Maybe one's spouse was killed and they want vengeance, not caring about who gets hurt in their way. Maybe they just like to kill people, and this is a way they can do it without being arrested. Don't be so limited as to think there is only one way to play out this adventure.




In point of fact the module says they are healed if they survive, but it also has Cyanwrath hit the character once after they are downed.

Melee attacks on incapacitated characters are, if I recall correctly, automatic critical hits. 4d6+4 damage averages to 18, that's only instantly lethal to a character with 9 or fewer hit points max. For example, a Druid with a low constitution modifier.

Actually the rule is if they take equal or more than their maximum hp, they instantly die. They are already at zero. Any character who has a max hp of 18 or less should die by the rules.

[Tanarii]

Becuase thats the whole point of the adventure. If your players are not heroically fighting the cult of the dragon, the'yre not doing the adventure.

If theyre not heroically fighting the cult, they wander off into the sunset leaving Greenest to its fate, and the aventure ends.Youre conflating being heroic and fighting the cult. However, if that's the way the adventure is actually sold, then that's fair. If it's not, then they aren't necessarily the same thing. You can fight cults in many ways, and being heroic or self sacrificing aren't necessarily key components of all those ways.



But thats not the point of the encounter. If you cant see the railroading here, I really cant help you. The adventure expects the PCs to answer the challenge, and in actual play (as evidenced by this thread) 99 percent of PCs accept that challenge.

The remaining 1 percent? Murderhobos gonna murderhobo.Yeah, I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the adventure. If the duel is presented as key to fighting the cult, I'm not surprised that a PC would step up, one way or the other. But if it's presented as a chance to be heroic, to do the right thing, or to save an innocent, but not as essential to stopping the cult ... then I'd expect players to play their PC's personality.


The PCs have plenty of opportunity to die. I'm not aruing you should remove the threat of death.okay, fair enough, I won't misrepresent your position in that way moving forward.


I'd ask you for more. I would want to know your bonds, ideals and motivations and reasons for being in Greenest. I would want to know about your familiy, why and how you became a member of [class X] and where you [normally] live.

At a minimum.Ideal, bond, and flaw are all part of the few lines of motivations D&D 5e encourages players to come up wit. It's a good system. And sure, knowing about your family, profession/background, where you grew up, and why you're in a place are good too. But those aren't pages of backstory. They're like age, height and weight. "I have a family, including some brothers. I grew up in a small farm. I left home and served with the army as their chaplain." That's sufficient, if desired, to start off a Soldier Cleric (for example). Other details can come out in play as needed, just as they would for any new character in a story or new person in a group they've recently met. Unless said details are pertinent to motivations, in which case they should be reflected in them. I certainly don't require them before a character joins a campaign, nor care to flesh them out in full before hand ... they're small touches that can be back filled on the fly as needed. They aren't typically crucial to getting in character, and that's what is important. Knowing why your character would do something, make decision A if situation B ... motivations.

[Malifice]

People always seem to be so angry at the idea of a DM fudging roles, I never understood this. Granted yes if a DM fudges roles against the players that's horrible, but that's something else all-together and not really what's relevant here.

I fudge rolls against players as well from time to time.

If the encounters are getting creamed and im rolling badly, then a six hour session can be quite boring. As a DM I keep an eye on the overall excitement the players are having, and their overall resource expenditure. In essence Im fudging to increase player engagement and excitement.

This is not to say that I dont let them cream the odd encounter. But when the session overall is getting boring (either due to my getting encoutner balance wrong or just having one of those days where I roll terrible) I'll consider either adding extra monsters, or fudging rolls.

If they're having too easy a time of it (and the game is boring as a result) I'll add a few extra monsters into the next encounter, fudge a roll here or there to turn a miss into a hit, or to pass a save that the monster would have otherwise failed and keep it alive for an extra round or two. Ill add a few extra HP on the fly from time to time also.

When I roll for random encounters, sometimes I'll just ignore the roll and either include a 'random' encounter or ignore one if the dice say one pops up (depending on the state of the party, and if I feel I need to spice up the session with an encounter). Sometimes I just roll dice behind the screen for no reason at all, and then pretend to look up something on a chart just to keep the players guessing.

On the flip side, I'll reduce monster HP on the fly (or remove monsters) if the players are having too hard a time of it or face a TPK, or fudge rolls to keep the PCs alive when they are facing death and havent done anything wrong.

Often I'll roll the dice out from behind the screen and in full view of the players and let them fall where they may.

Fudging rolls is no different from adding extra monsters (or taking some away). The point of the game is for your players to be challenged and above all, have fun. If fudging rolls for or against the players works towards that goal, then its the right thing to do.

- A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make.

E Gygax.


There are other possible reasons for playing out the adventure other than being goody-goody self-sacrificing heroes.

And if that was the precis for the adventure and the campaign, I wouldnt be as upset. If the expectation was that we were murderhobos and the campaign was fine with us not fighting the cult of the dragon, and simply packing up and running off to Waterdeep and looting Undermountain instead, then fine.


Actually the rule is if they take equal or more than their maximum hp, they instantly die. They are already at zero. Any character who has a max hp of 18 or less should die by the rules.

AFB but not sure about this. You dont continue to take damage after you reach 0 HP. If you take damage at 0 HP, you instead cop a failed death save (2 failed death saves if the attack is a crit, which considering youre incapacitated, most attacks will be).

The specific rule for death saves overides the general rule for HP loss.


"I have a family, including some brothers. I grew up in a small farm. I left home and served with the army as their chaplain.".

Where was the small farm, and what was it called? Why did you leave home? What drew you to the worship of your deity? Why did you join the army, and choose to be a chaplain? Where do you normally live? Do you own a home somewhere, or do you reside with your military unit? Are you still in the army, or have you left? Why didnt you return home to help your family out after discharging from the army?

Would be some of the questions I would ask you.

[Mellack]

AFB but not sure about this. You dont continue to take damage after you reach 0 HP. If you take damage at 0 HP, you instead cop a failed death save (2 failed death saves if the attack is a crit, which considering youre incapacitated, most attacks will be).

The specific rule for death saves overides the general rule for HP loss.



It is the rule. Here is the quote, pg 197.
"Damage at 0 Hit Points. If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death."

Any melee hit on incapacitated is a critical for double damage. If that damage equals your max hp or more, you are dead. By the book rules, Cyanwrath should kill most characters when he does his final blow on the KO'ed foe. The module goes against those rules when it says that should only give them one failed death save.

[Malifice]

It is the rule. Here is the quote, pg 197.
"Damage at 0 Hit Points. If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death."

Any melee hit on incapacitated is a critical for double damage. If that damage equals your max hp or more, you are dead. By the book rules, Cyanwrath should kill most characters when he does his final blow on the KO'ed foe. The module goes against those rules when it says that should only give them one failed death save.

Ah cool thanks.

So how would you feel if a DM instead killed you rather than following the specific rule here and following the clear intent of the encounter?

[Mellack]

It would depend on why my character went off to fight. If I was valiantly trading my life for another, then so be it. That makes him die a hero. If there was literally no risk, then he wouldn't have been a hero. I had a heroic character before who refused a resurrection because it would have required another soul to take his place. Being a self-sacrificing hero means taking the punishment yourself.
If I were doing it because I thought I could gain, then that would have been foolish on my part. There is already a guard willing to do it. A good (but not self-sacrificing) character can easily decide that the town is better off having someone else fight the duel.

[Malifice]

It would depend on why my character went off to fight. If I was valiantly trading my life for another, then so be it. That makes him die a hero. If there was literally no risk, then he wouldn't have been a hero.

Its not that there 'is no risk'. Objectively there is no risk (only the DM knows this) - but that doesnt change the players perception of the risk involved.

In my game, should a player accept the challenge and go out to meet Cyanwraith, I would first likely award inspiration to that PC as a soft reward for bravery and plot engagement (unless his bond was he was a coward or something similar).

Then I would let the battle unfold (after some RP and monologing by both parties). If during the duel [behind the screen] one of my dice rolls came up that dropped or even killed the PC, I would instead narrate it as him being felled by a mighty blow and reduced to 0 HP. For example, if the PC had 2 HP left, and his maximum was 12, I'd announce the attack dealt 13 points of damage (regardless of how much damage it actually dealt). I'd shake my head at how lucky he was, and reaffirm his good decision to pick a class with high HD.

In other words, I'd fudge the dice and lie to the player.

Then as the player breathed a sigh of relief, I would proceed to sneer at him mockingly and describe how Cyanwraith gets in one last hit on the downed PC (to bring him to 1 failed death save) before taunting his body, turning and walking away.

After the shocked silence at the table, I would immediately grant a single round for the other PCs scramble to rescue the downed PC as Cyanwraith escaped - by giving each player a second or two to declare actions, going around the table. I would only intervene with the keeps own medics if none of the other PCs bother to help the downed PC, or if they failed to bring the PC back up in time.

Once the PC was back 'up' I would RP a gratefull NPC or two (the hostages and the keeps boss) profusely thanking the PC, give him the reward of two healing potions (as per the adventure) and award the whole party 50xp each on the spot for their bravery and heroics in this scene (again, as recommended by the adventure). Maybe award the PC who accepted the challenge an extra 50xp on top.

As the story progressed I would ensure that I would let the PCs get a glimpse of a blue half-dragon walking around the bandit camp and generally being a tool to his minions in the next adventure, to foreshadow Cyanwraiths continuing involvement in the plot, and the fact he is a bad egg.

When the final showdown came, (when Cyanwraith becomes a level appropriate threat) Id be more inclined to have more [if not most] rolls in the open, which makes any player who metagamed or [correctly] deduced that I may have been pulling punches in the first duel, start to really sweat.

Id probably try and engineer a scenario where the same PC gets to engage Cyanwraith in another one on one fight, this time with the PC a better chance of a victory (by virtue of being higher level), and no chance of getting insta-gibbed.

Victory would be met with high fives and grins all round by my players when they finally brought that blue SOB down.

Thats my take on how I'd run it anyways.

[Knaight]

I would have thought the encounter as written was pretty clear in its context and intent that you couldnt miss the point of it, and the outcome (a dead PC who gets killed off for being a good player) was so outrageous as to make it a bit of a no-brainer.
"A good player" is incredibly loaded language here. If you're trying to encourage an act first, take big risks type of heroism, then yeah, that outcome is bad. It's appropriate to a different type of game. That's not the only valid type of game though, and the people who make different decisions consistent with a different type of game are not being bad players. It might be more appropriate not to agree to fight the guy, or to use the fight as a way to buy time while your allies bail the hostages out and then run, or to just get into a "you kill them, I kill you" situation where you show up with a dozen archers. Sometimes the right thing for the game is to go into a duel that is horribly unfavorable because it is the heroic thing, sometimes it is to think your way out of the situation presented.

Often it's more a matter of playing a character than anything, where different characters - including different heroic characters - approach the situation in different ways.


It is poor DMing to set the PCs against a foe they cannot defeat* just to kill the PC on purpose. That is what this module does but has the failsafe that the PC is not to be killed. A novice DM could overlook that in preparation or forget it in the heat of the moment. The tyrannical DM ignores it and relishes the idea a PC will die to prove how weak they are. A learning DM could interpret the scenario to mean all BBEGS should be impossible for the PCs to defeat until such time the DM permits it.

*Not counting for blind luck, but then you'll get other threads of DMs complaining a player one-shot the BBEG with a spell or something ruining several weeks of adventure preparation.
Who says they can't defeat him? Yeah, going in to the duel he wants you to go into tends to end poorly, but what exactly is stopping you from riddling the guy full of arrows, or bringing in the whole party to beat him down, or any number of other things?

[Giant2005]

I would rather have my character die than have the DM cheat in order to save him from his noble sacrifice.
Then again, as long as the rolls were hidden and I never found out about the cheating; ignorance is bliss.
Actually, now that I think about it, I think I could enjoy the game still even if I knew the DM was cheating on my behalf. Having that level of certainty that you won't die opens up some character avenues that otherwise wouldn't be feasible - something like a Luck Child, or someone that tells the God of Death "Not today" and actually has the God of Death listen. In hindsight, I'd love to capitalize on the opportunity.

[Malifice]

"A good player" is incredibly loaded language here. If you're trying to encourage an act first, take big risks type of heroism, then yeah, that outcome is bad. It's appropriate to a different type of game.

And its the kind of game to which I would walk. Thats my only point.

This adventure (barring a rewrite by the DM) is: Create a character with the narrative of 'heroically stop the cult of the dragon'. If I buy into this plot, and then follow the hook as presented, and then get railroaded into a fight with an overwhelming dragon cultist who then proceeds to murder me in session one (despite some pretty clear advice in the module not to) then I dont want to be part of that game going forward.

I had a DM once (PF) who made us all create characters for an AP (the winter one where you got to Russia). He demanded detailed backstories a page or two long, tying us into the NPCs in the town where the game starts, and the AP. We were asked not to over optimise as he wanted to focus on the story. Accordingly I play a half elf Soul Forger Magus using a bastard sword [about as suboptimal as you can get]. We selected traits for the AP, tied in our PCs, and were ready to go.

He starts the adventure, and hangs out the hook, which we duly follow.

Next minute the DM calls for a perception check. Righteo I think, here comes encounter one. Turns out there is a hidden Tazlwyrm [perception DC 26] which of course was impossible for my 1st level PC to spot (+5 as a half elf). No need to roll. A surprise round promptly follows. Still no need to roll. The Tazelwurm has pounce and rake. It charges in the surprise round against my flatfooted PC, hits with the bite, uses its grab ability, and then uses its 1st rake to knock me to negative HP.

The DM then briefly pauses... and uses its second rake attack on my unconsious body, auto critting and killing me, all before I rolled a dice in anger. He looks up at me and asks what my next character is gonna be.

I promptly left the campaign.

[Saintsqc]

I promptly left the campaign.

Lol

Have you seen the video of the guy flipping tables while playing mtg and catane?

[Waazraath]

I had a DM once (PF) who made us all create characters for an AP (the winter one where you got to Russia). He demanded detailed backstories a page or two long, tying us into the NPCs in the town where the game starts, and the AP. We were asked not to over optimise as he wanted to focus on the story. Accordingly I play a half elf Soul Forger Magus using a bastard sword [about as suboptimal as you can get]. We selected traits for the AP, tied in our PCs, and were ready to go.

He starts the adventure, and hangs out the hook, which we duly follow.

Next minute the DM calls for a perception check. Righteo I think, here comes encounter one. Turns out there is a hidden Tazlwyrm [perception DC 26] which of course was impossible for my 1st level PC to spot (+5 as a half elf). No need to roll. A surprise round promptly follows. Still no need to roll. The Tazelwurm has pounce and rake. It charges in the surprise round against my flatfooted PC, hits with the bite, uses its grab ability, and then uses its 1st rake to knock me to negative HP.

The DM then briefly pauses... and uses its second rake attack on my unconsious body, auto critting and killing me, all before I rolled a dice in anger. He looks up at me and asks what my next character is gonna be.

I promptly left the campaign.

Absurdness, this.

[Democratus]

And its the kind of game to which I would walk. Thats my only point.

This adventure (barring a rewrite by the DM) is: Create a character with the narrative of 'heroically stop the cult of the dragon'. If I buy into this plot, and then follow the hook as presented, and then get railroaded into a fight with an overwhelming dragon cultist who then proceeds to murder me in session one (despite some pretty clear advice in the module not to) then I dont want to be part of that game going forward.

I had a DM once (PF) who made us all create characters for an AP (the winter one where you got to Russia). He demanded detailed backstories a page or two long, tying us into the NPCs in the town where the game starts, and the AP. We were asked not to over optimise as he wanted to focus on the story. Accordingly I play a half elf Soul Forger Magus using a bastard sword [about as suboptimal as you can get]. We selected traits for the AP, tied in our PCs, and were ready to go.

He starts the adventure, and hangs out the hook, which we duly follow.

Next minute the DM calls for a perception check. Righteo I think, here comes encounter one. Turns out there is a hidden Tazlwyrm [perception DC 26] which of course was impossible for my 1st level PC to spot (+5 as a half elf). No need to roll. A surprise round promptly follows. Still no need to roll. The Tazelwurm has pounce and rake. It charges in the surprise round against my flatfooted PC, hits with the bite, uses its grab ability, and then uses its 1st rake to knock me to negative HP.

The DM then briefly pauses... and uses its second rake attack on my unconsious body, auto critting and killing me, all before I rolled a dice in anger. He looks up at me and asks what my next character is gonna be.

I promptly left the campaign.

So THIS is a bully DM. Not the DM from the OP.

Somewhere between these two is the line that shouldn't be crossed.

[Friv]

It is the rule. Here is the quote, pg 197.
"Damage at 0 Hit Points. If you take any damage while you have 0 hit points, you suffer a death saving throw failure. If the damage is from a critical hit, you suffer two failures instead. If the damage equals or exceeds your hit point maximum, you suffer instant death."

Any melee hit on incapacitated is a critical for double damage. If that damage equals your max hp or more, you are dead. By the book rules, Cyanwrath should kill most characters when he does his final blow on the KO'ed foe. The module goes against those rules when it says that should only give them one failed death save.

My suspicion is that, because HoDQ came out almost simultaneously with the core rules, a few things like that hadn't been ironed out fully yet, and criticals weren't creating double failed saves when the writers statted up that fight. There may not even have been instant death damage yet (although there probably was, because the module acknowledges the possibility of Cyanwrath killing someone.)

[Knaight]

I had a DM once (PF) who made us all create characters for an AP (the winter one where you got to Russia). He demanded detailed backstories a page or two long, tying us into the NPCs in the town where the game starts, and the AP. We were asked not to over optimise as he wanted to focus on the story. Accordingly I play a half elf Soul Forger Magus using a bastard sword [about as suboptimal as you can get]. We selected traits for the AP, tied in our PCs, and were ready to go.

He starts the adventure, and hangs out the hook, which we duly follow.

Next minute the DM calls for a perception check. Righteo I think, here comes encounter one. Turns out there is a hidden Tazlwyrm [perception DC 26] which of course was impossible for my 1st level PC to spot (+5 as a half elf). No need to roll. A surprise round promptly follows. Still no need to roll. The Tazelwurm has pounce and rake. It charges in the surprise round against my flatfooted PC, hits with the bite, uses its grab ability, and then uses its 1st rake to knock me to negative HP.

This is an entirely different situation. For one thing, in the campaign being talked about the players choose whether or not to pick a fight, and choose how to approach it. In this, an enemy with perfect stealth appears out of nowhere and instantly kills a PC. I'd be inclined to look at this askew, whereas my only issue with a game where you're expected to play smart and dirty is if it isn't presented that way.

[LordVonDerp]

What the heck ? What kind of game are you playing ? My DM isnt teaching me anything. Here is how a game of D&D usually goes :

You are confronted to a moral/tactical dilemna. You make decision base on a informations you have and your character personnality traits. Your DM explains the results. And it's fun.

There isnt teaching involved.

You fail game design forever.

[Saintsqc]

You fail game design forever.

Wait what ?

[Vogonjeltz]

Actually the rule is if they take equal or more than their maximum hp, they instantly die. They are already at zero. Any character who has a max hp of 18 or less should die by the rules.

Ah sorry about that, I think I may have been thinking of what it would take to instantly kill someone from full hp.

Still, the point stands, the maximum damage on a crit from Cyanwrath is slightly above the average hit points of a Fighter with +2 con mod. So in general, if you have a Barbarian or one of the d10 hit die characters fight Cyanwrath, they probably will survive failure.


Where was the small farm, and what was it called? Why did you leave home? What drew you to the worship of your deity? Why did you join the army, and choose to be a chaplain? Where do you normally live? Do you own a home somewhere, or do you reside with your military unit? Are you still in the army, or have you left? Why didnt you return home to help your family out after discharging from the army?

Would be some of the questions I would ask you.

None of the possible answers for these questions would have any form of relevance for the module however.


And its the kind of game to which I would walk. Thats my only point.

This adventure (barring a rewrite by the DM) is: Create a character with the narrative of 'heroically stop the cult of the dragon'. If I buy into this plot, and then follow the hook as presented, and then get railroaded into a fight with an overwhelming dragon cultist who then proceeds to murder me in session one (despite some pretty clear advice in the module not to) then I dont want to be part of that game going forward.

I had a DM once (PF) who made us all create characters for an AP (the winter one where you got to Russia). He demanded detailed backstories a page or two long, tying us into the NPCs in the town where the game starts, and the AP. We were asked not to over optimise as he wanted to focus on the story. Accordingly I play a half elf Soul Forger Magus using a bastard sword [about as suboptimal as you can get]. We selected traits for the AP, tied in our PCs, and were ready to go.

He starts the adventure, and hangs out the hook, which we duly follow.

Next minute the DM calls for a perception check. Righteo I think, here comes encounter one. Turns out there is a hidden Tazlwyrm [perception DC 26] which of course was impossible for my 1st level PC to spot (+5 as a half elf). No need to roll. A surprise round promptly follows. Still no need to roll. The Tazelwurm has pounce and rake. It charges in the surprise round against my flatfooted PC, hits with the bite, uses its grab ability, and then uses its 1st rake to knock me to negative HP.

The DM then briefly pauses... and uses its second rake attack on my unconsious body, auto critting and killing me, all before I rolled a dice in anger. He looks up at me and asks what my next character is gonna be.

I promptly left the campaign.

See, your experience is the opposite of the one from the HotDQ module.

In the PF campaign, you had no possibility of seeing or surviving the attack.
In the HotDQ example, the players have every opportunity to choose what occurs, and most characters will survive even if they lose the combat.

Night and day.

[BiblioRook]

Still, the point stands, the maximum damage on a crit from Cyanwrath is slightly above the average hit points of a Fighter with +2 con mod. So in general, if you have a Barbarian or one of the d10 hit die characters fight Cyanwrath, they probably will survive failure.

What averages? These are only level 1 characters we are talking about going into the first Cyanwrath fight, aside from a minor difference with better/worst Con they should all have pretty standard hit points.

[RickAllison]

What averages? These are only level 1 characters we are talking about going into the first Cyanwrath fight, aside from a minor difference with better/worst Con they should all have pretty standard hit points.

This is not the first fight, they are actually at level 2 IIRC.

[Lindonius]

This is not the first fight, they are actually at level 2 IIRC.

If you follow the landmark levelling as the book suggests they are actually lev 1 and at the end of their resource pool. I allowed my players to level up to 2 during a short rest when they gained enough experience from the previous encounters. So our Paladin got 2 fresh smites from his 2 new spells and managed to kill Cyanwrath with a lucky smite crit.

[RickAllison]

If you follow the landmark levelling as the book suggests they are actually lev 1 and at the end of their resource pool. I allowed my players to level up to 2 during a short rest when they gained enough experience from the previous encounters. So our Paladin got 2 fresh smites from his 2 new spells and managed to kill Cyanwrath with a lucky smite crit.

Ahhh okay, I haven't ran the actual adventure, I was going off what someone had said in the discussion.

[Mellack]

If you follow the landmark levelling as the book suggests they are actually lev 1 and at the end of their resource pool. I allowed my players to level up to 2 during a short rest when they gained enough experience from the previous encounters. So our Paladin got 2 fresh smites from his 2 new spells and managed to kill Cyanwrath with a lucky smite crit.

I find it funny that if you use the recommended milestone leveling from the module, you get to go to 2nd level at the end of the Greenest attacks section. No matter what you did. Even if your group stayed outside of the town and watched.
Which leads to what I find so disappointing about the adventure - how little effect the PCs seem to have. Even if you are able to defeat and kill Cyanwrath, nothing changes. He is replaced with an identical opponent for the later encounter. The army pulls back the same no matter if the PCs fight. It just rubbed me wrong.

[Lindonius]

I find it funny that if you use the recommended milestone leveling from the module, you get to go to 2nd level at the end of the Greenest attacks section. No matter what you did. Even if your group stayed outside of the town and watched.
Which leads to what I find so disappointing about the adventure - how little effect the PCs seem to have. Even if you are able to defeat and kill Cyanwrath, nothing changes. He is replaced with an identical opponent for the later encounter. The army pulls back the same no matter if the PCs fight. It just rubbed me wrong.

Yeah I didn't replace him. Funnily enough Frulam Mondath and the beserkers game them a much harder time than Cyanwrath did anyway!

[LordVonDerp]

Wait what ?

There is always teaching involved, it's inherent to designing and running a game.

[Vogonjeltz]

What averages? These are only level 1 characters we are talking about going into the first Cyanwrath fight, aside from a minor difference with better/worst Con they should all have pretty standard hit points.

The ones from being 2nd level, which they would be unless the milestone xp variant is used, and in that case the party has no incentive to get into combat at all. They should have just waited for the attack to end.

Milestone XP removes all motivation to take on risk from the game.
Although it's a intriguing concept, the intrinsic demotivational factor ruins the whole idea.

[Envyus]

When I had Cyanwrath fight the duel I just had him go easy on his opponent and use the spear instead of his greatsword. (No breath weapon or action surge ether.) Fight lasted a good 3 rounds and while Cyanwrath won the player did not die and had fun.

He later had a rematch with Cyanwrath and beat him (This time he was not going easy on him and used the Greatsword and lighting breath.)

[Tanarii]

I find it funny that if you use the recommended milestone leveling from the module, you get to go to 2nd level at the end of the Greenest attacks section. No matter what you did. Even if your group stayed outside of the town and watched.
Which leads to what I find so disappointing about the adventure - how little effect the PCs seem to have. Even if you are able to defeat and kill Cyanwrath, nothing changes. He is replaced with an identical opponent for the later encounter. The army pulls back the same no matter if the PCs fight. It just rubbed me wrong.
Well now, that definitely has the hallmarks of a railroad adventure. Far more than the duel itself seems to.