Two near-TPKs within four session - excessive, yes?

[Jon_Dahl]

I don't know what to do. Two out of three PCs have died twice within four sessions (to clarify: two players have created two PCs each and all four have died, while the PC of the third player has survived). The previous near-TPK: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?572429-I-m-terribly-sorry-that-a-PC-who-had-survived-for-a-very-long-time-died-today

After the previous TPK, I decided to pull a lot of punches for two sessions. The opponents were very easy and once an opponent was so ridiculously easy, that the players decided that this could have not been the same monster that had been threatening the local villagers, so they searched for its 'twin brother' or lookalike for a while before they decided that the extremely easy monster that they had killed had in fact been the monster that the villagers had described.

Last Sunday, the PCs broke into a home of a rich and elderly fighter, who had been sleeping at the moment. Subduing the almost naked fighter was easy, especially since he had AC 10 (He didn't like to sleep wearing an armor of any kind). Afterwards they split and started to search for treasure: the elf monk (level 11) upstairs and the human fighter 2/wizard 8 and gnoll ranger 10 downstairs. The human and the gnoll kept fairly close to each other but did not move together. The gnoll encountered an ice golem (Frostburn) in one of the rooms. The wizard came to help him while invisible (superior invisibility), but the gnoll was dropped to -7 hp in four rounds. The golem dropped him and resumed its guard duty. The invisible wizard poured a Heal Moderate Wounds potion down the gnoll's throat and the battle was restarted, but the gnoll was prone and had around four hit points. The ice golem killed him immediately and the gnoll was torn into little pieces.

The human wizard called the monk to attack the ice golem. The golem used its improved grab ability to slowly crush the monk for four rounds during which the wizard cast grease (hence, the crushing of the elf continued horizontally) and after the grease, the wizard didn't have any useful spells left, since he had used them against the semi-naked fighter and he had cast a number of invisibility spells, but he offered some comfort to the elf while he was being killed. The human wizard used superior invisibility to collect the bodies (i.e. the pieces) and took them away. He then left the mansion empty-handed.

Now the players of the gnoll ranger and the elf monk have created an elf bard 9 and a minotaur fighter 9. I don't know what to do to keep them alive. Advice is welcome.

[DeTess]

Can you get me a page reference for the ice golem? I can't find such a creature in MM3, nor anywhere else official for that matter (there's one on the PFSRD, but that one doesn't have a constrict move).

As for the rest, you could have had the ice golem attack the monk player instead of the gnoll as you'd know he'd insta-kill, right? If you need in-game justification, just say that the ice-golem went after the obvious threat posed by the monk, rather than the badly wounded gnoll.

The only real piece of advice I can give right now is to make sure you set a consistent difficulty level. Making things too easy will make players feel safe and secure, even when going off on their own, and if you then suddenly ramp up the difficulty it'll get them killed.

[Jon_Dahl]

Can you get me a page reference for the ice golem? I can't find such a creature in MM3, nor anywhere else official for that matter (there's one on the PFSRD, but that one doesn't have a constrict move).

As for the rest, you could have had the ice golem attack the monk player instead of the gnoll as you'd know he'd insta-kill, right? If you need in-game justification, just say that the ice-golem went after the obvious threat posed by the monk, rather than the badly wounded gnoll.

The only real piece of advice I can give right now is to make sure you set a consistent difficulty level. Making things too easy will make players feel safe and secure, even when going off on their own, and if you then suddenly ramp up the difficulty it'll get them killed.

I'm terribly sorry, the ice golem is in Frostburn, not in MMIII.

I had placed the golem downstairs to attack intruders that most likely use the front door. Placing the golem upstairs would have meant a unopposed access to the mansion but close protection of the bedroom, which would have made sense as well.

[DeTess]

I'm terribly sorry, the ice golem is in Frostburn, not in MMIII.

I had placed the golem downstairs to attack intruders that most likely use the front door. Placing the golem upstairs would have meant a unopposed access to the mansion but close protection of the bedroom, which would have made sense as well.

I'm not surprised the golem almost TPK'd your group. That creature would have been a pretty major challenge against the party working together. Remember that the effective level of your party is lower because there's only 3 of them (it's about 8, if I calculated correctly), though a CR9 creature would still have been within the usual range. However, being fed into the grinder one at a time, it'd easily murder them. In fact, if the ranger didn't have any bludgeoning weapons or access to power attack, the monk would basically have to solo the monster even if they where all fighting it together as the ranger couldn't hurt it because of its DR, and the wizard couldn't hurt it because of magic immunity.

I'd recommend looking through any monster you pick for this party very carefully. Just because its CR is within the acceptable range doesn't mean it doesn't have surprises that makes it punch way above its weight against your party.

Another thing to check: is your party's WBL at the recommended value? The ranger and monk would both depend on that for power quite heavily, and if they're both poor on magic items, they'd be far weaker than the game expects

[Mordaedil]

This might be a minor thing, but remember that magical healing from negative hit points immediately restores the character to 0 before adding the full healing to positive hit points, so you don't count the -7 he was at first and count upward. It's a small thing, but it might make the game a fair bit less lethal.

[Andreaz]

The only 3.5 ice golem I know is the Frostburn ice golem. CR 9.
Golems can be pretty tough, but they have bad matchups.

A wizard 8 with scorching ray will probably drop the ice golem with 2 or 3 casts. Less with practiced spellcaster (to get CL 10).

How long did it take for the wizard to reach the ranger? A full run easily covers 60 to 120 feet. Being close by means they should probably reach each other within a round.

4 rounds to -7...The ranger would have what, some 70 hp? That means the golem got half his attacks to connect. At +15 this means the gnoll had about 26 AC. Sounds about right. Let me guess. A lot ofof 1d6+2, 1d6+3 nonbludgeoning, nonflaming attacks for 0 damage all? The ranger is at clear disadvantage, but he definitely could keep the golem busy while the wizard melted it with ease. Even if just by trying to be an inconveniently placed traffic cone.


After getting thrashed, instead of getting away, they restart the fight without even recovering? Without changing tactics? That's just asking to lose.


That party was not really prepared to fight an ice golem, at all. They had little to nothing that actually hurts the golem, and did little to compensate for it.
Looking at that and the previous encounter it looks like your players simply don't know the system well enough to cover their bases, nor do they respond soundly to their situation, so any foe demanding specialized tactics will destroy them.

[Crake]

This might be a minor thing, but remember that magical healing from negative hit points immediately restores the character to 0 before adding the full healing to positive hit points, so you don't count the -7 he was at first and count upward. It's a small thing, but it might make the game a fair bit less lethal.

This sounds like a houserule you use. If you believe it to in fact be RAW, I would very much like a reference, as I would appear to have been doing it wrong all this time.

[Andreaz]

This sounds like a houserule you use. If you believe it to in fact be RAW, I would very much like a reference, as I would appear to have been doing it wrong all this time.

That's a thing from 4e onwards IIRC

[Eldariel]

I'm not surprised the golem almost TPK'd your group. That creature would have been a pretty major challenge against the party working together. Remember that the effective level of your party is lower because there's only 3 of them (it's about 8, if I calculated correctly), though a CR9 creature would still have been within the usual range. However, being fed into the grinder one at a time, it'd easily murder them. In fact, if the ranger didn't have any bludgeoning weapons or access to power attack, the monk would basically have to solo the monster even if they where all fighting it together as the ranger couldn't hurt it because of its DR, and the wizard couldn't hurt it because of magic immunity.

I'd recommend looking through any monster you pick for this party very carefully. Just because its CR is within the acceptable range doesn't mean it doesn't have surprises that makes it punch way above its weight against your party.

Another thing to check: is your party's WBL at the recommended value? The ranger and monk would both depend on that for power quite heavily, and if they're both poor on magic items, they'd be far weaker than the game expects

The Ranger hardly has a reason to not pack a weapon of each damage type; they get all martial weapon proficiencies for free. Indeed, even with no PA just a backup non-magical two-hander on an 18 Str Ranger would be punching through the DR for some damage (2d6+6 averages 13 so 3 damage per hit on two attacks per turn). Given that Gnolls have +4 Str, that's not much to ask for and he could easily have more. Also, the effective party level of two level 11s (Gnoll is +1 LA, remember) and a level 10 is definitely closer to 10 than 9; losing a party member is about a 1 level reduction in the EPL. Any of those characters should, by CR numbers, easily be able to solo it. A level 10 character is a CR 10 encounter most of the time (a bit higher due to their WBL being significantly higher than equivalent NPC WBL) and a CR 10 is more than a match for CR 9 on average. Fact is that this is a party of high-level mundane characters built on the WotC levels of optimisation so the CR-system has no bearing on their actual ability. Indeed, one should estimate the encounters either not at all and build them ecologically instead, or just be careful of some enemies requiring any special tactics.

[Telonius]

Afterwards they split

I think I've identified the biggest issue.

That said, Golems are tricky, particularly for a party that's shorthanded. They hit hard, have lots of immunities, and can generally be a problem if you don't have the one particular thing that hurts them. They are a true pain in the butt for low-op Wizards. A well-prepared group can handle them, but I don't think that really describes your group.

[zlefin]

do the players mind dying?
if not, just let them die. the deaths seem to be a result of their own tactical mistakes in this case.

even with no build optimization, as long as they have normal WBL, they should be alright in cases like this.
adventuring is supposed to be dangerous after all.

[EldritchWeaver]

I think I've identified the biggest issue.

I agree, in addition to not run and regroup in a safe space. What was the monk doing anyway, if he was near enough to the ranger to help? He did once the wizard called. Also, punishing the players by deleveling them further after death won't help, too. They are punished enough by having to create new chars every two sessions anyway.

[J-H]

You seem to be posting here a lot for DMing advice. I suggest less forum-posting and more OOC discussion. Their opinions are worth ten or twenty forum posts from us - each.

What do your players think about this? Are they having fun? Do they feel like the deaths were generally earned and avoidable?

[Crake]

You seem to be posting here a lot for DMing advice. I suggest less forum-posting and more OOC discussion. Their opinions are worth ten or twenty forum posts from us - each.

What do your players think about this? Are they having fun? Do they feel like the deaths were generally earned and avoidable?

I don't 100% agree with that. Getting advice from experienced DMs can be quite valuable, and the players may be having fun, but be unaware that they could be having more fun, or they may be "having fun" but really just be cruising, and just passing time, plus not ever player is interested in having a long discussion ooc about the direction of the game, they aren't that attached to it all, and that's totally fine. Then there's the age old addage about how you shouldn't always cater to what your audience wants, because half the time they don't know what they want.

Coming to the forums for advice, especially about mechanical encounter building, rather than storytelling or campaign directional advice, is totally fine.

[Quertus]

do the players mind dying?
if not, just let them die. the deaths seem to be a result of their own tactical mistakes in this case.


What do your players think about this? Are they having fun? Do they feel like the deaths were generally earned and avoidable?

I'll echo these sentiments.

Also, I'll add that you should probably give the replacement characters a level boost, and certainly not a level penalty, if their players consistently lost characters.

[Jon_Dahl]

You seem to be posting here a lot for DMing advice. I suggest less forum-posting and more OOC discussion. Their opinions are worth ten or twenty forum posts from us - each.

What do your players think about this? Are they having fun? Do they feel like the deaths were generally earned and avoidable?

I have already spoken with my players about what happened and they said that the PCs should stick together and this was the conclusion of the OOC reflection. But they have already agreed to do that three times already: "We will not split the group," and then they do it anyway. And then I come here. It is paramount to understand that any OOC talks that we have about gaming will be forgotten in a week. This is how it works.

[Jon_Dahl]

I'll echo these sentiments.



Players don't mind that their characters die and they are having fun, as far I know.

[zlefin]

sounds like things are fine then and you should just keep going on like you are.
your players don't want to try-hard and learn/improve. they're just having fun and that's fine. taking lessons and applying them rigorously is work for some people.

don't do anything to keep them alive, just let them die periodically when they happen to.

is the amount of char death making it unfun for you to dm?

[Geddy2112]

If everyone is having fun, continue business as usual.

Dialing back encounters is not just math of WBL and factoring in being a three person party. You can and probably should factor in their less than optimal characters and their willingness to continually play stupid games and win stupid prizes. This might help the logistics standpoint of the revolving door party.

[Florian]

Sorry to say it, Jon, but when should retellings of the events be accurate, your player simple don't seem to have the slightest clue how teamwork should look like, how to generate synergies and how to cooperate in the first place or how strategic decision-making works.

[Quertus]

Players don't mind that their characters die and they are having fun, as far I know.

Cool.

I'll point out - with less venom than many Playgrounders - that, by weakening enemies that you've hyped up, as you described yourself doing in response the previous (near) TPK, you are doing a poor job of telegraphing creature's threat level.

Allow me to suggest automatically granting the PCs an immediate action Sense Motive upon seeing anything to determine its threat level, accompanied with a not-so-subtle nudge like "which means you think that you will die if you attack it alone".

Also, allow me to suggest that you write up your adventures like a module, and run sample characters (perhaps even copies the PCs) through it, so that you can more accurately judge just how terrifying an encounter could be to your party.

[EldritchWeaver]

I have already spoken with my players about what happened and they said that the PCs should stick together and this was the conclusion of the OOC reflection. But they have already agreed to do that three times already: "We will not split the group," and then they do it anyway. And then I come here. It is paramount to understand that any OOC talks that we have about gaming will be forgotten in a week. This is how it works.

Why don't you remind players when they are doing things they agreed not to do, that they violate their own tactics?

[Mordaedil]

This sounds like a houserule you use. If you believe it to in fact be RAW, I would very much like a reference, as I would appear to have been doing it wrong all this time.
Me mis-reading page 135 of the Player's Handbook, apparently. I also read it as beating the DC 15 heal check allowed to you resume as normally.

Welp, that's embarrassing. :smalleek:

[Fizban]

Is this the same group you've had since Red Hand of Doom? It seems clear they're never going to learn, so if you want them to stop dying you're going to have to take the game into your own hands. No more picking monsters based on CR and party level, apparently you need to pick foes that any individual PC has a high chance of soloing (and make sure they never appear more than one at a time unless the party is *absolutely guaranteed* to all be present). I've said before you need to look at the actual numbers and expected round by round results, and the monk being simply squeezed to death is a perfect example of why. It seems your wizard still prefers to spend most of their spells on avoiding combat, so it's not like you'll have a caster=win problem if you dial everything down.

You could also just forbid them from splitting the party, at least in any area where combat could happen. The next time they try to split up, you tell them no, because they said they'd stop splitting up and you're tired of watching them die over and over, because you wrote an adventure for a party, not a bunch of suicidal idiots. I know this is sharply against your usual DM style, but again, if you want different results then you're going to have to change something, because the players aren't.

I'm curious as to how you're making those characters, since a Minotaur is ECL 8 (and a Gnoll ECL 3) before adding class levels. IIRC, wasn't one of them eating a huge level adjustment during one of their deaths? Unless that was a different poster.

[emeraldstreak]

The golem used its improved grab

Whoa, bruh, you don't get to use this kind of abilities against typical non-forumite party and have them survive.


Your problem is two-fold. Your players don't do meta (eg. they are level 7+ but don't FoM), and they also have underpowered builds. One of these must change if they're to win encounters like this, and it won't be them doing meta. Your option is to provide them with optimized builds next time they die.

[Caedes]

Aloo!

Maybe set them up to learn how to Team Work?

They botched a robbery it sounds like. Is the naked elderly fighter's wealth explained?

Mayhap, he got his wealth from running an underground arena. And now that they botched robbing him he gives the party a choice.

Be his star centerpiece in a multi-round battle royale. If they survive they will receive many riches (Or the MacGuffin they were in his house for in the first place), if they fail then their impertinence will have been punished.

Before each round, have an informant character give them some "insider info" as to what/ who they will be fighting next. This will give them a chance to prepare for combat and talk tactics. This will also allow you to slowly crank up the difficulty on them to even get to the point of getting a second shot on fighting that golem again (Or his arena custom built cousin).

Then allow them to rest between rounds and prepare for what is coming next.

IMHO, this will do a couple things. Give your players a chance to see what teamwork and planning can do. Allow them to utilize different aspects of their characters.

And for you, it will give you an idea of where the sweet spot is for them.

This may also work for your table as OOC conversations do not seem to take. Maybe practical experience will hold better?

[Karl Aegis]

What are your characters' Armor Class?
What are your characters' Hit Point Totals?
What are your characters' Grapple Modifier or Escape Artist Modifier?
What are your characters' Reflex Saving Throw?
What are your characters' Attack Routines?

It sounds like your players are trying to get by on low-level tactics at a relatively high level, but don't have the numbers to actually back up such a play style. Ultimately, they're either going to have to start using their higher level spell slots on something, or never be in melee, ever.

I throw this box I used Shrink Item on last week between the golem and the party member so it expands to block Line of Effect and Line of Sight is a favorite of mine.

[Calthropstu]

Is this the same group as the hell cat incident?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Could you maybe transcribe their character sheets to myth-weavers.com sheets and link them for us to see?

[Rynjin]

I see three core issues:

1.) The party has only 3 characters. This is nobody's fault, but consider asking if the Wizard player would like to run a second character to fill out the party. If not, keep in mind to lowball threats; not by super-nerfing monsters, but by making sure they're fighting creatures 1 CR below what you think they should be able to handle. In general (and the game assumes low op characters), a group of 3 level 11 guys should be fighting CR 10 creatures on the routine, with CR 11+ being varying levels of challenging.

2.) The players make poor decisions. This is their fault, and not something anyone else can fix. They know what they're doing wrong and keep doing it. Next time they split up, remind them what happened last time. Also, remind them that they can run away from fights if they end up in a 1 v 1 against a creature a party of 4 is meant to struggle with.

3.) You're putting them into a death spiral by penalizing their levels when they make new characters. This is your fault, and should be something you set aside with all the other relics of games past like THAC0. Making new characters come in a level lower means the party power disparity grows. It makes it more difficult for you to balance encounters. It makes it harder for players who already have an issue with tactics to figure out what they're supposed to do. This is not the main problem, but will BECOME it if you keep it up.

All of these are relatively fixable issues, and I think your problems will start to mitigate themselves once you start looking into doing so.

[Calthropstu]

I see three core issues:

1.) The party has only 3 characters. This is nobody's fault, but consider asking if the Wizard player would like to run a second character to fill out the party. If not, keep in mind to lowball threats; not by super-nerfing monsters, but by making sure they're fighting creatures 1 CR below what you think they should be able to handle. In general (and the game assumes low op characters), a group of 3 level 11 guys should be fighting CR 10 creatures on the routine, with CR 11+ being varying levels of challenging.

2.) The players make poor decisions. This is their fault, and not something anyone else can fix. They know what they're doing wrong and keep doing it. Next time they split up, remind them what happened last time. Also, remind them that they can run away from fights if they end up in a 1 v 1 against a creature a party of 4 is meant to struggle with.

3.) You're putting them into a death spiral by penalizing their levels when they make new characters. This is your fault, and should be something you set aside with all the other relics of games past like THAC0. Making new characters come in a level lower means the party power disparity grows. It makes it more difficult for you to balance encounters. It makes it harder for players who already have an issue with tactics to figure out what they're supposed to do. This is not the main problem, but will BECOME it if you keep it up.

All of these are relatively fixable issues, and I think your problems will start to mitigate themselves once you start looking into doing so.

I would advise running a dmpc in this instance. It could round out the party and help keep them alive.

For the splitting thing, that's actually common. I ran a psion who went by himself frequently, and there are things you just want to do alone. Also, splitting up can be very handy in a time crunch.

[Rynjin]

I would advise running a dmpc in this instance. It could round out the party and help keep them alive.

Most parties are averse to having a DMPC, so I didn't suggest it. If your players are fine with it and you don't mind the extra work though, it's an option.


For the splitting thing, that's actually common. I ran a psion who went by himself frequently, and there are things you just want to do alone. Also, splitting up can be very handy in a time crunch.

It can be handy, sure, but "Don't split the party" is one of D&D's biggest memes for a reason. Particularly for a low op, low tactics group that like to charge threats head on instead of tactically regrouping when split, the general advice of "stick together" is good.

[Jon_Dahl]

Allow me to suggest automatically granting the PCs an immediate action Sense Motive upon seeing anything to determine its threat level, accompanied with a not-so-subtle nudge like "which means you think that you will die if you attack it alone".

I will use that when it is appropriate, but I did describe the ice golem as very strong and intimidating.


Why don't you remind players when they are doing things they agreed not to do, that they violate their own tactics?

If I remember, I will, but I'm certain that I will not remember, because I have my hands full when I dm.


Is this the same group you've had since Red Hand of Doom?

Not exactly, but we have been playing for 10 years now. 16 years with one of the players.


I'm curious as to how you're making those characters, since a Minotaur is ECL 8 (and a Gnoll ECL 3) before adding class levels. IIRC, wasn't one of them eating a huge level adjustment during one of their deaths?

You are right, the gnoll was sporting LA and racial HD. The thing is that I haven't seen the minotaur yet, but it will have all the basic stuff (i.e. racial HD + LA + class levels = ECL)


Maybe practical experience will hold better?

Hmmm, I don't know, I've been thinking about this. I could try this but it seems a little bit complicated for me.


What are your characters' Armor Class?
What are your characters' Hit Point Totals?
What are your characters' Grapple Modifier or Escape Artist Modifier?
What are your characters' Reflex Saving Throw?
What are your characters' Attack Routines?


Could you maybe transcribe their character sheets to myth-weavers.com sheets and link them for us to see?

The players have their sheets with them. This is why I don't know their characters that well. Actually I have a somewhat poor understanding of their characters and I like that because it's like "what happens, happens" and things don't have to be mechanically tailored to suit the PCs.


Is this the same group as the hell cat incident?

Yes, but the human wizard's player is new.


You're putting them into a death spiral by penalizing their levels when they make new characters. This is your fault

I have mitigated this: the newly created PC can be two levels lower than the highest level PC of the group, but not three or more. This means that if I have a 9th-level PC and a 12th-level PC in the group and the 9th-level PC dies, the new character will at level 10. This modification was done based on the advice that I had received here.


I would advise running a dmpc in this instance. It could round out the party and help keep them alive.

I can't do that, sorry. It's too much for my brain. I was trying to give them a ridiculously powerful speaking magical item but the wizard went against it because he temporarily lost level when he tried to wear it.

[Rynjin]

That doesn't actually solve the issue. A 10th level PC in a 12th level party is behind the curve. Your players already struggle when they're at the right level for your challenges. Ergo, being at a lower level than they should exacerbates existing issues.

[Jon_Dahl]

That doesn't actually solve the issue. A 10th level PC in a 12th level party is behind the curve. Your players already struggle when they're at the right level for your challenges. Ergo, being at a lower level than they should exacerbates existing issues.

Then should the acceptable level difference be zero? That seems a bit... drastic. Well, that's my first impression, at least. E.g. One of the characters rises to level 12 and two other characters still have a lot to go before that level, so it would be better to just kill off the characters and get two level 12 characters. I must say that I am very, very, very skeptical about this. Very much so.

[DeTess]

Then should the acceptable level difference be zero? That seems a bit... drastic. Well, that's my first impression, at least. E.g. One of the characters rises to level 12 and two other characters still have a lot to go before that level, so it would be better to just kill off the characters and get two level 12 characters. I must say that I am very, very, very skeptical about this. Very much so.

This only goes if the only kind of reward characters get is XP and level-appropriate loot, though I can imagine frequent deaths might indeed cause rewards to boil down to that. If you include other, more intangible rewards, such as contacts, reputations with certain factions, favors owed, custom magic items, etc. this no longer becomes valid. I have to agree that even two levels can be a pretty huge difference, so if you want a difference at all, make it no more than 1, but I'd keep it at 0 and discourage this tactic through the way you reward your payers for completing quests.

Edit: though if your players are so unattached to their characters that they would do these kind of things, you might be having a different problem.

edit2: I also assume this means you calculate XP individually? Most GM's I've played with keep it as group XP to keep everyone on more or less the same level (item crafters getting behind a bit, but getting cheaper toys in return, so it evens out more or less). It's not wrong to do things this way, but the issue you described above would also be mitigated if you kept the group at the same level as a standard.

[Eldariel]

This only goes if the only kind of reward characters get is XP and level-appropriate loot, though I can imagine frequent deaths might indeed cause rewards to boil down to that. If you include other, more intangible rewards, such as contacts, reputations with certain factions, favors owed, custom magic items, etc. this no longer becomes valid. I have to agree that even two levels can be a pretty huge difference, so if you want a difference at all, make it no more than 1, but I'd keep it at 0 and discourage this tactic through the way you reward your payers for completing quests.

There's however no real way this would influence the problem at hands. The issue is not party power disparity, it's just complete and utter lack of tactical acumen and strategic thinking. And suicidal behaviour and terrible, terrible builds in a highly build-optimisation dependent system on top of it. A level or two hardly influences that.

[Quertus]

I will use that when it is appropriate, but I did describe the ice golem as very strong and intimidating.

And how did you describe the pushovers?


The players have their sheets with them. This is why I don't know their characters that well. Actually I have somewhat poor understanding of their characters and I like it like that because "what happens, happens" and things don't have to be mechanically tailored to suit the PCs.

I'm a fan of this plan.


I have mitigated this: the newly created PC can be two levels lower than the highest level PC of the group, but not three or more. This means that if I have a 9th-level PC and a 12th-level PC in the group and the 9th-level PC dies, the new character will at level 10. This modification was done based on the advice that I had received here.


Then should the acceptable level difference be zero? That seems a bit... drastic. Well, that's my first impression, at least. E.g. One of the characters rises to level 12 and two other characters still have a lot to go before that level, so it would be better to just kill off the characters and get two level 12 characters. I must say that I am very, very, very skeptical about this. Very much so.

How about "I have 3 12th level PCs, all with exactly the same XP, period". Whenever a character dies, the new PC is at exactly the same level and XP as the party. The GM / everyone simply tracks the party XP. And everyone is always at the party XP.

This does require not allowing people to spend or lose XP - no level drain monsters, easy (make that trivial) acquaintance of XP components, etc.

But I think that it will help.

[Eldariel]

How about "I have 3 12th level PCs, all with exactly the same XP, period". Whenever a character dies, the new PC is at exactly the same level and XP as the party. The GM / everyone simply tracks the party XP. And everyone is always at the party XP.

This does require not allowing people to spend or lose XP - no level drain monsters, easy (make that trivial) acquaintance of XP components, etc.

But I think that it will help.

As above, I really don't think that's the issue nor an issue in this case. The party doesn't look like the levels are what's causing the "problems". The Wizard being 1 level lower did nothing to affect this.

[Zanos]

For what it's worth I don't think the strength of the encounter the issue. The party split and then made some bad decisions. They engage an unknown enemy with only two of them, one of them gets beat near to death, and the wizard gets him back on his feet with the enemy still right there. So it kills him. Kind of predictable. Then instead of picking up the pieces and leaving he calls his other buddy to also come get killed by the golem, even though the wizard himself is low on spells and the golem just beat someone else to death.

Honestly if this is the typical kind of strategy they employee then I'm not surprised they die frequently.

[Kelb_Panthera]

The players have their sheets with them. This is why I don't know their characters that well. Actually I have a somewhat poor understanding of their characters and I like that because it's like "what happens, happens" and things don't have to be mechanically tailored to suit the PCs.


Then you're going to continue to have this problem. If you don't know what they can do, you can't avoid accidentally placing things that poke at their weaknesses.

You're also liable to run into the other end of the problem when they have abilities you weren't aware of and don't know how to deal with from a spellcaster picking up a good spell (probably a lucky guess with your group).

There's also the issue of possible rules errors on their sheets going unaddressed and pushing their character up or down from where they should be.

Do you but I think this is not a good place for a DM to be.

[Quertus]

For what it's worth I don't think the strength of the encounter the issue. The party split and then made some bad decisions. They engage an unknown enemy with only two of them, one of them gets beat near to death, and the wizard gets him back on his feet with the enemy still right there. So it kills him. Kind of predictable. Then instead of picking up the pieces and leaving he calls his other buddy to also come get killed by the golem, even though the wizard himself is low on spells and the golem just beat someone else to death.

Honestly if this is the typical kind of strategy they employee then I'm not surprised they die frequently.

I mean, the telegraphing of the strength of the encounter may have been lacking (not that I have a huge problem with that, personally).

Oooh, how about you get them to post their stories, and have the Playground roast them until they learn how to think and cooperate at a 5th grade level?

[Zanos]

I mean, the telegraphing of the strength of the encounter may have been lacking (not that I have a huge problem with that, personally).
Maybe at first, but I thought it was pretty well telegraphed after it beat someone unconscious and the party persisted.

[Quertus]

Maybe at first, but I thought it was pretty well telegraphed after it beat someone unconscious and the party persisted.

Yeah, but at that point, it was poorly telegraphed by the Wizard: "yo, dude, solo this monster for me".

[noce]

What I see is that your party members use only core and do weak choices even in core.
A fighter 2/wizard 8 is basically a wizard 8. Racial HDs and LA are bad. Monk is bad. Bard is bad. No one seems to know about prestige classes, except Expert that nonetheless was the weakest build.
In the meanwhile, you use out of core monsters.
The power gap between core only and splatbooks is big. If they only use core, you should too.

Also, level 10 and level 14 in the same group is very bad, not counting the wizard is effectively just level 8. Probably if they were same level the wizard could have saved the dwarf by a single save or loose spell, 7th level spells are that good.