Murdering PCs

[Calthropstu]

So the adventure path I am running, the Jade Regent, has a series of random encounters listed for this months long travel time you do during a cross over the top of the world from Varissia into Tien.

My PCs had been literally obliterating these encounters. So much so that I decided they could easily trounce more than one in a single day. The first one went off without a hitch: I threw 3 frost drakes at them and they predictably mopped the floor with them. Because my DMPC is a life oracle with Boots of the Earth, they didn't even use up their healing. However, the Druid's Animal Companion died. (2 coldballs wiped him out)

The next encounter was set to be:

The Lonely Maiden, a Yuki Ona (Bestiary 3) If you don't wanna look it up, it's basically an icy ghost that tries to draw people off by themselves and kill them.

By having 2 people split off from the Caravan, they presented this monster with an opportunity it couldn't ignore. With 1 character engaged in performing a ritual to gain a new animal companion, that left the barbarian a VERY easy target. He failed his saves (23 times in a row...), wandered off and well... got slaughtered.

When the thing finally attacked he was about half a mile away from his other party member. He was then obliterated with overwhelming force (it's a CR8 creature up against a 7th level barbarian.)

I feel like throwing this at them in this way was pretty much blatant PC murder, but I had already determined that the battle with the drakes was what had attracted this in the first place. Should I have changed my plans?

[JNAProductions]

23 times in a row.

23 TIMES IN A ROW.

23 TIMES IN A ROW!

Right, you didn't murder anyone, the DICE did.

More seriously, did you give enough hints and clues that something was up for the players to respond? If so, then you did fine. Characters die.

If not, and you just killed off the PC without giving them a chance to respond to it, then yes, you are at fault.

[Calthropstu]

I didn't have the heart to also murder the now defenseless druid.

Perception checks take a huge hit because of the creature, and the Druid never even tried to go looking for him. He (not in so many words) said the only way he would be getting up from his ritual was if something disturbed it.

They were miles out into the wilderness by themselves, so no one else would have been able to spot anything was wrong.

Also, the thing nearly TPK'd the whole group when they fought it (very bad player decisions... please note, not taking a move action inside of the ice storm spell is unwise)

[Vizzerdrix]

That depends on what the DC was. If the barb had to roll a 20 to make it or not.

But either way, this is why you never, ever split the party.

[Calthropstu]

That depends on what the DC was. If the barb had to roll a 20 to make it or not.

But either way, this is why you never, ever split the party.

It uses a fascination effect, DC 21. The barb's will save bonus was umm... +3. So he needed an 18 on the die.

[Segev]

It uses a fascination effect, DC 21. The barb's will save bonus was umm... +3. So he needed an 18 on the die.

That's actually still less than a 3% chance to fail 23 times in a row. He is literally more likely to roll a single natural 20 on one die roll than to fail that particular roll 23 times in a row.

[John Longarrow]

Did the party consist of only the Druid and Barbarian? If not, they should have all gone to help support their dear friend in his moment of need by being there during his ritual.

Don't split the party should be a mantra for PCs.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It uses a fascination effect, DC 21. The barb's will save bonus was umm... +3. So he needed an 18 on the die.

Oh yeah, definitely murderous dice here. Sometimes PC death happens. Kinda sucks that it was a random encounter but PC's live in an absurdly dangerous world. **** happens.

[Stryyke]

I understand how you feel, but you don't have to worry. Unless you actually murdered him for OOC reasons, IC people die. COULD you have finagled the encounter? Sure. But if you save someone every time things get tough, then the PCs never have to be careful. The threat of death needs to be real. Maybe it wasn't your intent, but this will serve a purpose in game.

[JNAProductions]

Is your player upset? Or are they fine with it? Because D&D is meant to be fun.

[Sneak Dog]

How do the players react to this defeat?
It's always important to set the expectations right between everyone, especially on character lethality.
If they're ok with this, then great. The dice didn't go in their favour, their strategy didn't work out and most died. Roll up some new characters and lets go.
If they're not ok with it, then you misjudged the encounter difficulty, should've fudged a die roll or manipulated things subtly behind the scenes some other way to leave them near-death, rather than dead. Lessons learned. Roll up a new party and tally-ho!

How did you know they were destroying the earlier encounters? Did the PC's feel that way, or you?
From experience, I know tracking PC resources is hard when behind the DM screen. You've enough other things to track in-combat. It's far easier to gauge combat difficulty by just noticing how hard the players find combat and which players get to shine.

[Stealth Marmot]

He failed his saves (23 times in a row...),

MURDER THAT d20 WITH HOLY FIRE!!!

[Telonius]

Or, claim it as your own. It clearly has a penchant for murdering PCs; this might just be its audition to be your DM Die of Doom.

EDIT: To the topic though... the dice were murderous, the players broke the primary rule of adventuring (don't split the party), and the Druid (pretty foolishly) took himself out of the game. But you also had a random encounter that was an appropriate challenge for an entire party pitted against what was basically a single PC. The PC in question was very ill-suited to fight the encounter, with their lowest save being the one that the monster's ability targets. This is kind of a perfect storm of mistakes. If anything else had been different (one more person guarding, dice not being murderous, encountering a different monster) the Barbarian probably would have lived. Personally I don't think it's the DM's job to totally handhold the players through everything; bad tactics should lead to bad results. But you did choose to spring a high-powered enemy on them at the time they were absolutely at their weakest. I probably would have chosen a different monster, waited until the party was whole to spring it, or (at the very least) called for a few spot checks to tip him off that something was not quite right.

[Eldariel]

Y'know, if a level 7 character has +3 Will-save, they're going to either kill the party or get mindraped sooner or later anyways. This was just natural selection (plus ridiculously unlucky dice - normal Will-save-or-X effects leave you FUBAR'd with one roll).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Isn't this also the adventure path with the magic deus ex mcgruffin plot device that resurrects you whenever you die? No real harm done there. I also agree with the general consensus that the loss was primarily due to poor choices, which is fine.

[Efrate]

I never feel bad. If the party, or a party member does something foolish and gets punished its on them. You have an ambush predator that stalks and kills lone people. You had a lone person willingly go off by themselves. They deserve it. As long as the players are not totally new they should know better. If it was their first time gaming, yeah handhold a bit, if not thems the breaks.

I think Gygax said it best, and im paraphrasing, you never have to go out the way to kill the pcs, they do it themselves must give them time.

The dice fell badly. They made dumb choices. They die. Move on.

[NecroDancer]

Don't split the party should be a mantra for PCs.

How sad is it that my party works best if split up?

[Segev]

Y'know, if a level 7 character has +3 Will-save, they're going to either kill the party or get mindraped sooner or later anyways. This was just natural selection (plus ridiculously unlucky dice - normal Will-save-or-X effects leave you FUBAR'd with one roll).

In a party where there is a LOT of trust (and the caster in question has a lot of self-control), this is one reason why it is common practice to have the caster dominate person the low-Will PCs. Now, when the low-Will PCs fail a save vs. enemy mind-magics, the friendly caster can give orders meant to override anything the enemies try to compel them to do. This leads to an immediate opposed CL check, which your party caster is likely to have a better chance of winning than the low-Will PC had a chance of making the save. It also, even when there's a high will save involved, gives a second line of defense.

As a backup benefit, dominate person and it's cousins give you a telepathic link. It isn't two-way, in that the target can't send you deliberate messages back, but you can use him as at least a one-way speaker, and you can call him for help. More importantly, the caster does know what he's experiencing, even if he doesn't get full sensory input. "Oh, he's been charmed. I'm compelling him to stay and protect the Druid from attackers until we get a clearer picture of what's going on. Just to be on the safe side."

Obviously, the biggest flaw here is that it is a TREMENDOUS amount of power in the hands of the caster (and his player) over the other PC(s) involved. If the caster wants to simply be in charge, he can. He can win any argument if he wants to. But if he's trustworthy and able to control himself, he can leave his ally or allies free to do as they will by simply not compelling them to do anything. If he's a good enough guy about it, he could even have the party leader dominated and still be taking orders from said party leader.

Assuming a trustworthy enough caster, the only question that remains is whether his judgment is good over when to assert control. And under most circumstances, that should be fairly obvious to everybody.

[Calthropstu]

Isn't this also the adventure path with the magic deus ex mcgruffin plot device that resurrects you whenever you die? No real harm done there. I also agree with the general consensus that the loss was primarily due to poor choices, which is fine.

His character refused to become bonded to the artifact. He blatantly refused it. When they tried to resurrect him, he said no.

So yeah... if he had wanted to, he could have kept the character.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Banner of Law, Heroes of Battle, 8k gold.

This is my preferred solution to the low-will beatstick problem. Get him to strap the standard to his back like this guy:

http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2010/10/2/144445_md-Banner,%20Blue,%20Bushi,%20Character,%20Clan%20War ,%20Crane,%20Daisho,%20Hashimono,%20Katana.jpg

And he and anyone within 30 feet are safe from charms and compulsions.

[Sword-Geass]

I think that what happened is okey. You played the stalking monster the way it should be played, and not like an idiot. And I would also be more surpised if 23 failed rolls (in a row no less) didn't end with someone dead...

Just keep that dice locked for when you need someone to die and be OK with it, the player even refused the ressurrection so not even (s)he seems to care (that much).

On the bright side, you have an excellent story to tell :smallbiggrin:

Also, I can't resist the urge to laugh everytime I read that "23 times in a row...".

[Crake]

In a party where there is a LOT of trust (and the caster in question has a lot of self-control), this is one reason why it is common practice to have the caster dominate person the low-Will PCs. Now, when the low-Will PCs fail a save vs. enemy mind-magics, the friendly caster can give orders meant to override anything the enemies try to compel them to do. This leads to an immediate opposed CL check, which your party caster is likely to have a better chance of winning than the low-Will PC had a chance of making the save. It also, even when there's a high will save involved, gives a second line of defense.

As a backup benefit, dominate person and it's cousins give you a telepathic link. It isn't two-way, in that the target can't send you deliberate messages back, but you can use him as at least a one-way speaker, and you can call him for help. More importantly, the caster does know what he's experiencing, even if he doesn't get full sensory input. "Oh, he's been charmed. I'm compelling him to stay and protect the Druid from attackers until we get a clearer picture of what's going on. Just to be on the safe side."

Obviously, the biggest flaw here is that it is a TREMENDOUS amount of power in the hands of the caster (and his player) over the other PC(s) involved. If the caster wants to simply be in charge, he can. He can win any argument if he wants to. But if he's trustworthy and able to control himself, he can leave his ally or allies free to do as they will by simply not compelling them to do anything. If he's a good enough guy about it, he could even have the party leader dominated and still be taking orders from said party leader.

Assuming a trustworthy enough caster, the only question that remains is whether his judgment is good over when to assert control. And under most circumstances, that should be fairly obvious to everybody.

Just to correct you there, it's an opposed charisma check, not a CL check. Big difference, especially when the party wizard has 8 cha because he thought he has enchantment and can get away with whatever, and the enemy is a sorcerer with +10 cha or something

[Calthropstu]

Just to correct you there, it's an opposed charisma check, not a CL check. Big difference, especially when the party wizard has 8 cha because he thought he has enchantment and can get away with whatever, and the enemy is a sorcerer with +10 cha or something

My binder sorcerer has a +15 on his charisma checks. Ah the circlet of persuasion. So good in PF, now that it no longer occupies the same slot as the headband.

[thorr-kan]

In a party where there is a LOT of trust (and the caster in question has a lot of self-control), this is one reason why it is common practice to have the caster dominate person the low-Will PCs.
That...is a fascinating bit of metagaming tactics.

You're right; player/character trust is going to be a *huge* factor hear. But what an interesting role-playing opportunity. Huh. I think my theory-enchanter has a new idea. Thanks!

To the original poster: no, not your fault. Players have free will. Yours choose...poorly.

[Calthropstu]

That...is a fascinating bit of metagaming tactics.

You're right; player/character trust is going to be a *huge* factor hear. But what an interesting role-playing opportunity. Huh. I think my theory-enchanter has a new idea. Thanks!

To the original poster: no, not your fault. Players have free will. Yours choose...poorly.

I disagree. There were plenty of role playing options that it went down the way it did. They had no way of knowing that the area they were in was haunted by this creature, and the death of the druid's animal companion was completely unplanned.

But as soon as he and the barbarian went off, I thought... "oh crap." To be fair, they had been beset by all sorts of hazards and monsters... but the main thing had been up until that point, it had all been 1 encounter per day. I had, before the encounter started, determined that THIS was going to be a multi encounter day. The fight with the drakes drew the attention of this particular creature. (drakes are kind of loud, plus I gave them a "music box" with the music being a dragon's roar... which they have been using as an alarm to alert the caravan.)

[Grod_The_Giant]

I disagree. There were plenty of role playing options that it went down the way it did. They had no way of knowing that the area they were in was haunted by this creature, and the death of the druid's animal companion was completely unplanned.

But as soon as he and the barbarian went off, I thought... "oh crap." To be fair, they had been beset by all sorts of hazards and monsters... but the main thing had been up until that point, it had all been 1 encounter per day. I had, before the encounter started, determined that THIS was going to be a multi encounter day. The fight with the drakes drew the attention of this particular creature. (drakes are kind of loud, plus I gave them a "music box" with the music being a dragon's roar... which they have been using as an alarm to alert the caravan.)


His character refused to become bonded to the artifact. He blatantly refused it. When they tried to resurrect him, he said no.

So yeah... if he had wanted to, he could have kept the character.
Yeah. This was in no way, shape, or form your fault. You gave ample warnings, ample opportunity for the Barbarian to break free, ample opportunity for the Druid to do something useful...

[Covent]

I would not say this was your fault. I mean a split party and a barbarian with a +3 will save at 7th...

[Segev]

That...is a fascinating bit of metagaming tactics.

You're right; player/character trust is going to be a *huge* factor hear. But what an interesting role-playing opportunity. Huh. I think my theory-enchanter has a new idea. Thanks!You're welcome! Glad it provided some amusement and ideas.


Just to correct you there, it's an opposed charisma check, not a CL check. Big difference, especially when the party wizard has 8 cha because he thought he has enchantment and can get away with whatever, and the enemy is a sorcerer with +10 cha or something

...huh, you're right. I hadn't read that rule in a while, and I guess I'd mentally substituted the CL check because it seemed more reasonable. I mean, seriously, why would a wizard's control, based on his intellectual knowledge of magic to compel the mind, be dependent on how persuasive he is?

There are perfectly valid and reasonable answers to this, of course.

Chalk this up to one way in which Sorcerers do, in fact, have an advantage over Wizards. The mind-control focused Sorceress really is going to be naturally better at it, when it comes to opposing other Enchantresses!



...huh, this probably has come up before, but I just (re-)thought of it... nothing prevents you from casting dominate person on yourself. This would give you essentially a secondary roll, assuming the DM doesn't rule that, having failed the save, you no longer are the one who decides what orders to give your dominated "friends." (Which would mean you couldn't give yourself countermanding orders.)


Also-also, re-reading dominate person, you CAN check in on the target. Fully concentrating on the spell will let you fully share his senses for as long as you do so. So you could concentrate on him to check to see what's going on if something pinged on your worry-dar.

[Calthropstu]

...huh, this probably has come up before, but I just (re-)thought of it... nothing prevents you from casting dominate person on yourself. This would give you essentially a secondary roll, assuming the DM doesn't rule that, having failed the save, you no longer are the one who decides what orders to give your dominated "friends." (Which would mean you couldn't give yourself countermanding orders.)


I would rule it that because you are dominated, your own domination of you still works but the person who has dominated you can tell you what to tell your dominated self. However, it would be interesting to see what would happen if a group of enchanters dominated each other.