Wow, target regular ac? You know that makes them incredibly super bad right?
I'm not sure your being serious or sarcastic. I'm going to go for sarcastic. We have a player with a Ranger who retrained his TWF for a ranged specialist because our group has enough frontline fighters. Yeah he sure is "super bad". Really he is. All the times his hits and does damage while targeting regular AC. It's too bad he rolled low damage a few times. We all agreed that switching to a bow was a mistake. Super bad give me a break.
Some posters on these just can't make up their minds lol. First the Gunslinger is overpowered as is. Add a penalty or houserule and suddenly they suck. Make up your minds.
Yeah, if they target regular AC I'd suggest removing the misfire chance.
I might. If I do that then I would also remove the chance of a bowstring breaking on a natural one as well. Even with a misfire chance that ios what Grit points are for. To be used to prevent a misfire.
I ban the antagonize feat.
At my table I ban any references towards the words broken or overpowered. Unless it can be proven Im sick to death of players, Dms and the community tossing out the word whenever it can.
I dont ban Gunslingers. Next time I have one in my game they will target regular AC. I do find it very funny that some in the hobby insist that guns dont fit when a whole bunch of modern stuff is in the game already. Just wrapped up with fantasy flavor.
Tear Gas and Flash Bangs = Pyrotechnics.
Oil Slicks = Grease
Fireball and Delayed Blast fireball = explosions and ranged attacks.
Dont even get me started on how Dragons the size of commercial jets can not only fly yet have enough food to live on. The Beholder is a laser platform that flys and so on. Yet guns are that hard to fit in. Go figure.
As well a Wizard can use a extend rod to increase the duration of his protection spells. Sure it's only three spells. While hiding behind Vanish or invisbility as a spell. So unless the distance from point a to point b is very long. Or the Wizard is constantly under attack their protection spells can stay on for a very long time.
For me it's just part of the game. Just as players can use spells on npcs. Then imo pcs should be fair game. The only time I see it as bad form is when no matter how good a player(s) roll on a saving throw they get dominated. As nothing runs the fun more is a perfect example of bad form with enchantment spells. Than a DM who refuses to let his npcs lose. I'm not saying it's fun for the pcs. Far from it. It is one of the risks one faces as a adventurer. That being said it does need to be used sparingly as well.
I work in retail so I know. Move a few sections around and customers complain. To me that brings a complaint from a valid one into the realm of complaining for the sake of it.
It is a non-issue. Unless I as a player am somehow mind controlling the DM. Or holding a gun to the his or her head a DM does not have to use anything. It's like DMs who can't say no to allowing something. Or completists that just have to buy new product. Then blaming Paizo. Even if they add the new material to APs one can alter or remove the ne material. A little annoying to be sure. Yet if I disliked Alchemists in my game or a AP I just disallow the class or in the case of the Ap alter the npc. As for the flame threads. I suggest taking what is said in those with a galaxy sized grain of salt. Usually the examples given by players and DMs don;t happen at most gaming tables.
I work as a bookseller. I dislike 50 shades of grey. I still sell and promote it. It's part of my job and in the end I'm not forced to read it. I even promote another product which is spoof called 50 shades of chicken. It's a cookbook written along the same lines. The adventures of a free range chicken at the hands of a overly aggressive chef. don't beleive me go check amazon.
What does bother me with these threads is that it posters who start them imply that their being forced to use anything and everything at a gaming table. Unless someone phyically threathens to beat a DM up or hold him at gunpoint its a non-issue. Almost as bad as posters complaining about the amount of material Paizo publishes. Why would a rpg company offering steady support of new product be viewed as a bad thing. Most rpg companies would imo kill to be able to publish the amount that Paizo can. Its like going to Dunkin Donuts and complaining about the selection of donuts being offered.
Its not nor will it ever be a issue with myself or my gaming group. As we can tailor to allow which classes we want to use. It would be a truly be a issue or valid complaint if imo if somehow we would ne forced to use all the classes. No one is forcing anyone to use let alone buy more new material. As well imo Im assuming enough fans want more new options for everything. Otherwise why publish something that no one is asking for. Paizo is a business not a charity or a non-profit organization. Gamers forget that sometimes. Im getting tired of seeing Lovecraft material in the Bestiary. Enough fans want it plus there is enough non-Lovecraft material. Im not going to tell them to stop publishing Bestiaries. Maybe reduce the frequency of releases if possible.
At the very least I may get this when it goes to stores. except now I'm not sure sure. With Paizo having added some templates into their bestiaries already...ah the hell with it. If it has some new art I will get it. I may still get it just because it was and is my favorite 3.5 book.
Here is a link to their site. Has not been updated since 2010. http://silverthornegames.com/sgblog/?page_id=7 maybe asking through Goodman Games.
Again I'm not seeing what shallowsoul is still arguing about. While some of us disagree with how he runs things at his table. To a certain extent we can imo at least respect it. Which we have yet it seems unless he can get enough us to say "we we wrong Shallowsoul and you were right all along " theis thread will keep going until the mods get feedup and close it. Now what is the point. Arguing for the sake of arguing. A misguided attempt at validation of a certain position which knowing these forums is not going to happen. And please don't tell me "others have said otherwise in this thread" either. At this point it' the op continuing it for the sake of it imo. Can;t wait fir the next reworded thread on the exact sam topic.
The same reason too many posters start threads. To get validation and a echo chamber or both. Im not even sure why Shallowsoul is still continuing the topic. I get he does things his way at his table. Which he has brought one too many times already. So what is the point of just rehashing the topic. To get the last word. Good luck on that.
Not denying that. I'm just wondering why even after we came to a consensus . Or close to it that the thread seems to be going in circles. How many times can a topic be disucussed before imo it becomes redundant. Imo this thread is. If posters want to keep rehashing go for it. It just seems like a waste of time to me anyway.
I think the crux of the whole argument is the simple fact that there a people here that just won't admit that every table is not for them and that campaigns don't have to be changed in order to accommodate them.
No not really. It's been said over and over again that if neither DMs or players can work whatever issues they have at the table that either side walk away. Only a handful of posters keep trying to blame players and therefore keep using the player entitlement card. If either side can't work things out no one is being forced to do anything. If I want to play a elf and it's a no elf world. Then I play something else or go elsewhere. If as a DM the players refuse to listen to me and don;t take me serioulsy at the table I walk away. Again only a few handful keep insisting that anyone be "forced" to do anything.
How many times does this need to be said. It's like I can't help but notice that unless you get validation of your position that you keep restarting a discussion that ended. And yes I know it's a forum to discuss topics. Except why keep bringing up the same topic when it's been asnwered already.
I'm not bothered at all about it. I do notice though that if one tries to make a non-optimized character imo the system does not reward him/her for doing so. A fighter without the bread and butter feats can still hit and do damage yet be less useful than a optimized fighter. mind you some of the optimized builds I have seen make no sense. A Gunslinger with a low Strength. How is that character supposed to move let alone lift his weapon and carry all his equipment.
Because D&D imo is a rpg where logical and mundane sense gets tossed out the window. In a rpg where gods exist. Where Clerics can raise the dead and Wizards create demiplanes and summon creatures out of thin air. Logic and mundane just are simply not something thay imo can be attrbuted to D&D. At least imo. Now if we were talking about Ars Magica which is a rpg that does model the middle ages well its another story.
Agree about the giants. Then again I think Paizo is running into the same problem with the Bestiary like Wotc did with their monster Manual. too many monster that are imo similar. As well as much as I like more monsters it maybe time to reduce the amount of Bestiary they publish. With four of them as well as 3PP support they maybe running out of ideas.
Who knows. Paizo maybe be better than wotc or worse. Hard to say. Then again unlike some in the hobby I dont have a strong emotional attachment to the companies I buy rpgs from. At the very least not unless I personally know the people running the company. Since I know no one from Paizo I respect all the thay have done. but that it.
Not specifically you, neccesariy but i often see the open minded thing used almost more as 'why don't you just be open minded and adopt my position."
I admit I am not perfect. I have caused my share of being annoying on these boards. As well I have seen the same on my mend where someone who is open minded is anything but.As well as your postion. No one is perfect. I just want some posters to at least acknowledge that even if one has a difference of opinion neither side is doing it wrong. More often than not imo there seems to be either your with us or againast attitude taken by some posters.
Nobody is wrong at their own table if they are all having fun. However, i'm not going to agree that I'm doing it wrong at my own table - especially since both I and my players like it. I don't have any objection to the existence of Kirth's style; I even enjoy playingin it from time to time. It just isnt much my style of gming. Although interestingly enough, thatone world that the paladins got put into was originally designed communally and then became and established world with restrictions through continuous use.
Their is a difference between your postion and some I read on the board. At your table you like things done a certain way. I may not agree with it. Nor do you have to defend it. Gamers tastes are different. Except Im not seeing you come here and start a thread after thread bringing up the same subject. Or when given feedback unahppy that it does not back up the subject matter. Whats the point of asking if player XYZ is entitled when told no he is not. Then go on a rant on how player XYZ is being entitled and no one will tell you otherwise. not exactly conductive to a interesting and good discussion on these forums.
There are certain subjects where my mind is made up and your not going to convince me differently. for example having guns Target Touch AC is one of the dumbest thing that Paizo imo has done. It makes a class very powerful. Even if historical certain guns were better against armor. D&D is not a historical accurate rpg. Last time I checked dragons the size of jumbo jets were not flying around in the middle ages.
Other subjects I am ore open minded about. If I say a certain feat, item etc is overpowered. And the posters prove me wrong. I'm not going to get angry and offended because I was proven wrong. Or that someone opinion differs from mine. The difference is that I'm not going around and telling others that if your not doing it my way then your not playing/running the game wrong. If you ask my opinion on how much powers players should have at the gaming table. I tell you. It's not what you wanted to hear. Then tell me I'm doing it wrong because I'm encouraging entitled players. Well what was the purpose of being asked for my opinion only to be told I'm wrong and be shown how "to run a proper table".
Again it's not so much not wanting to hear a different opinion. I like hearing both sides. It's when posters act like they want to hear both and truly are not interested in hearing anything that deviates from what they think. As well do we really need the same topic reworded, rehashed over and over again.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
You know, it occurs to me that I'd hoped for too much. Most people don't seem to actually want to understand one another's positions; they just want to be self-righteous and/or snide. At least I enjoyed talking to Matt and Vincent, but aside from that, this is another thread that I clearly need to bow out of.
If it's any consolation most players and DMs are anything but what you see here on these boards. Not to say they don't exist. They do yet imo and thankfully for the hobby as a whole very rare. I just found it strange and a little funny that even when you agree with Shallowsoul. He still seems to want to be argumentative. Why argue with someone who agrees with you. I just don't get that.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Very much agreed and seconded. I would like to see a Varisa sourcebook. As well as some of the older 3.5 material on areas of the world updated as well.
Matt Thomason wrote:
I would like to see a PF 2.0. that does not invalidate older material. All im saying is that to see some actually changes to the system they may have to possibly invalidate the older material. I rather not spend 100-120$ on another rehash with new cover art. YMMV. As for COC the latest edition is actually something of a departure from previous editions. So the 7E may not be completeyl compitable with older editions.
I get the argument about too many editions which is why Im not getting 5E D&D. Everything I have read and heard doesbn ot interest me. As well as edition fatigue. Im not saying a new edition has to happen. All Im saying that its something we as fans may see something that is not backwards comipitable in the future. Which may put Paizo in a classic catch-22 situation.
I think both rulebooks and APS eventually reach a point where one has too many. I just find rulebooks more useful. Not that APs are bad products. I just find the npc to be very subpar. When I have top rewrite almost every noc in a AP to be a challenge for the average adventuring group imo it defeats the purpose of buying them in the first place. When I'm spending more time redesigning encounters as well. I might as well just do my own from scratch. Still it just a personal preference on my part. Their maps as well are also useful.
Good points all around. I would like to see more optional source material along the lines of unearthed arcana or something similar. Would I like a new edition. Possibly and not anytime soon. It may have to happen though if the current one stops being profitable. At the same time Im not sure they can make any major fixes short of a new edition or optional rules in sourcebooks. Im trying to be objective about the matter. I may nto always succeed.
I thin that eventually the sales on APs may reach a saturation point. How many APs does one truly need. After awhile one imo does become less reliant on APS. That being said though from the looks of it and imo they are doing well. Myself nto a fan of them though.
Pax Veritas wrote:
I never said otherwise about Paizo implementing quality decisions. Or that its a quality company. They are still a business and not a non-profit rpg company last time I checked. To think otherwise is to be delibretly naive in the extreme. Notice i did not say greedy I said they want to have a profitable company. Its not like James or anyone else at the company are losing sleep because they produce both a quality and proiftable product.
Pax Veritas wrote:
Really fear is what you think motivates Wotc and other companies to implement change. Fear. LOL. Conpsiracy theory much. They dont do it because of fear. They like Paizo do it because they want to sell a profitable product. How exactly do you think Paizo pays bills, and slaries. With goodwill. Sorry but goodwill last time I checked is not a valid currency at most banks. Now do I agree they may have gone too far with the changes in 4E. To a certain extent yes. Yet they may have to if eventuially the current version stps being profitable.
Pax Veritas wrote:
If you can link to some sort of memo where other rpg companies make major changes motivated by fear to their rpgs please post it. Otherwise its just so much tin foil hat conspiracy theory.
What solution then do some here propose when the company stops meeting the minumum amount of profit needed to stay in operation. Simply close their doors and lay people off. I have nothing against tradition. I respect the tradition of D&D roots. The devs should not be held hostage by those traditions. Or the fanbase. Do I want Paizo to be profitable yes. I also know that imo they should never just assume that the system as is will always sell. People forget that Paizo is also a business.
All some of us are asking is that they offer non-traditional options. which can be used side by side and optional. And no saying go "play another rpg" is not only being rude imo it's a planet sized cop-out. If the devs never take risk we would all still be playing 2E and lamenting that non-humans races have level lmiitations. I'm also not saying do it for the sake of doing it. Only if it needs to be done.Eventually they may have to do it. Only so many temporary patches one can put on a ruleset before it can't be patched anymore.
As well enough with the Wotc paranoia. They are not brainwashing anyone. Nor sending costumed ninjas to anyone door. Or sending sublimaely messages through anyone dental fillings.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Agreed and seconded. I am like you in terms of rules changes. I know it will not happen. I'm in the minority. I'm just getting tired of getting told that we can't talk about major changes and that we should leave and go somewhere else. That's not only rude it makes for a toxic forum environment imo.
I guess I don;t understand the need for posters to complain about a set of rules that they like. It makes no sense for me to complain about high level play bogs down the game. Then when someone suggest maybe streamlining it then complaining it changes the game. Then again at least to me people who play D&D or at least a very vocal minority seem to really dislike the game they play. That's the impression these forums and other related forums give me.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
All I'm saying is that while I would be very surprised that they changed anything it can be done with a book of optional rules like 3.5 did with Unearthed Arcana. There is nothing wrong with talking about wanting changes in the system. It is after all a discussion forum. Not a PF validation echo chamber last time I checked. I'm getting tired of a handful of posters who feel the need to get on people cases for wanting to discuss a perfectly valid topic. While at the same time acting as if they are the spokesperson for the entire fanbase.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
Take a look at the forums and see how many threads are about praising the system. Not many more often than not we get more threads about people complaing about the system. If fans like the system so much why are they nit praising it more. Then again people will complain for the sake of it.
The irony is that some people don't want to see major changes. Yet complain about so much about the Pathfinder rules in general. Why even complain when as a person your not interested in seeing anything change. I dislike fighters in 3.5 and PF has done nothing much to change my opinion. I did complain at first. Now I just take the other melee classes. It's like some of the fanabse want change yet don't want it at the same time. Makes me really glad I don't run a rpg company and just how much crap the Devs have to put up with.
For the moment. Who knows if in 5-10 years time even with the continued publishing of APs if remaining with Pathfinder as is will be profitable for them. They are a business. They need to keep being to pay bills and employees. If they can do keep doing so with the system as is for anoter 10-20 years kudos to them. It's not guaranteed that it will. People said the same thing about 3E failing because 3E was not as compitable with 2E. No one knows for sure what major changes or not Paizo needs to do.
I appreciate the apology AD yet imo it's not needed. Your not one of the posters I would consider ones that go around causing trouble on the boards. At least one can have a decent conversation with you on the boards. Nor do you approach a open ended thread already picking a side. Then refusing to acknowledge the other side. When a poster keeps insisting that 2+2 =5 and the majority on the board agree that its 4. Then the same group of people say were are wrong and insist that it's 5 and we all need to go back to school to learn math. Is when it gets toxic. I'm not a perfect poster I admit. Yet I would not be able to have a discussion with some posters in public because imo they simply are not interested in hearing another opinion but their own. While considering everyone around them wrong. So what would be the point.
Then again who knows what could have happened if Pathfinder have never came to be either. I knew a few 2E die-hards that after awhile switched over because they could not find many players to play or run a 2E game because of 3E popularity the first few years. Since no one was really supporting 2E. It's easy to point at 4E and say "well it was too different" and say it's the main cause. There is more than one imo.
As for new editions whenever Paizo starts to see a major loss in profit. Why would they keep publishing the current version at a loss. Just to make some of the fans happy. If the current version remains profitable for them so much the better. Except it's not guarantee that it will. The main draw of backwards compitable I'm seeing is no longer the main reason that people buy PF. I barely use let alone look at my 3.5. material anymore. Unless it's for a monster that Paizo is unable to use. Or a player really wants to play a 3.5 . class. Or in my case for Bard feats since imo Paizo needs more bardic feats. Beyond that they just sit on my shelf gathering dust. I'm going to sell some today at my Lgs that takes used books. Now if the group and DM makes use of much 3.5 material that is of course another story.
As for builds I would say read the guides but don't follow them completely. I like Treantmonk guides yet no matter how I like his bard build centered around combat is. No Bard imo has any business being at the front of combat. The class is imo simply not designed for it.
I disagree with you about the locked threads being about passion. Those that respond to them may feel passionate about the topic. Or the hobby in general. The op that starts them is to me trying to push a agenda that is less about passion and more to be validated about his style of running a game. When there is not one not two not three but more threads on the same topic reworded differently it's not to me at least about passion for playing in the hobby. Espcially when every time battle lines get drawn. gain it's not so much about something mattering. So much as already having one mind made up about a topic. And nothing will change that. While trying to portray everyone else with a difference of opinion as being wrong. That's not debate. That's wanting to have a echo chamber than getting displeased when others disagree. A decent amount of posters come to a consensus on a topic in a thread. Yet the same ones just can't let it go and play the same broken record. I don;t know why. Just to psuh posters buttons and to get a reaction.
Your thread to me displays passion. As some newer ones.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Well said AD well said. Its not even so much posting a thread about a topic I disagree with. I may disagree yet respect that. Its that its the same topic reworded differently. Too bad the flagging options dont inlcude a flamebating or trolling option.
Josh M. wrote:
i would not putthe percentage so high. Maybe 70-80%. Either to get a reaction. Increase post count. Or a echo chamber validation thread. Im all for debating a topic. Yet if before posting a topic a posters that creates the thread mind is already made up on the topic. Well it seems reduandant to ask for feedback. Espcialyl if nothing said in a thread even remteoly has a chance of changing the person mind.
Yeah pretty much. Then when it goes on for 2000+ posts or so gets locked. Then it starts up again. I sometimes wonder if the OP had some sort of truly major falling out with a player(s). Its a issue the OP just cant seem to let go. Nor accept that their might be a difference of opionion.
I don't get when people in the hobby say that if they called 4E anything but D&D 4E it would have done well. Whether they left the D&D logo or removed it. Released 4E as is or a rehashed 3.5. it may not have done well anyway. Just like chances are Pathfinder may have not done well. I knew players in the hobby so tired of 2E they would rather not play any D&D at all then play 2E when it was the current edition. I can understand not liking the rules of 4E. But pointing to 4E and saying "4E would do well if they did not call it D&D" is something I will probably never understand.
Even though I found some of White Wolf products hit or miss. They did make for some good reading imo. What happened was that they painted themselves into a corner with having a event across all their game lines that would end the world. no way to stop it. No way to survive it. The end comes better pray to your gods for deliverence or a quick death. Tying too many of the later sourcebooks into the overall world ending metaplot alos imo did not help things either. Its hard to maintain player interest or as a player when your screwed no matter what you do. Now the NWOD I like more. Less metaplot more toolkit approach. And more importantly unlike old world of darkness the various game lines mesh well togoether. It was so damned hard to have a mixed group in the OWOD. That and humans were too squishy. Now one can have a mixed group as well as play a mortal. That being said I did find the wrting style of the older edition books more interesting.
Or cant let it go for some reason. I may disagree with certain ppostions that some posters on this forum take. Yet for some odd reason some feel the need to go into every thread and just play the same broken record. We get it at your gamign table you like to play a certain way. We dont need to hear about it over and over again.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
You and me both. I wont pretend that I have neverr come across some of the things i see on these forums. Yet its few and far between. Usually unless both sides are unreasonable and stubborn we end up solving the issue at the gamign table or out of it.
Generic Dungeon Master wrote:
Wait, wait, wait just a minute...are some of you suggesting that there is more than one way to play this game, and still have FUN, no, no, this cannot be.
Careful this might just turn into another thread where players are portrayed as being spoiled, over-entitled and just playing to cause problems to a DM.
Can someone tell me why these threads almost always turn into the player almost always being part of th problem and not the solution. Im starting to wonder if some posters here really dont have much respect for players as a whole. A thread starts okay then it always comes down to players being portrayed as the ones being part of the problem. Second thread. Boils down to it being a failing on the players part. Do some of you who complain about players not liking deaths also complain that players dont spend enough time giving any backstory as well.
A player killing his character through bad choices and poor judgment in my experience it happens very rarely. If it does keep happening why is no one espcially the DM not trying to talk things through with the player on adjusting his or her strategy. Or players or both. If neither gets a player to alter his tactics for a different outcome than he deserves to have his PC die over and over.
In a game I'm in a player insists on being stubborn no matter what I, the other players and DM try to give as advice. I have written him off at the table because only so many times I want to talk to a brick wall. And sometimes DMs do kill players because they can and a player deserves to be unhappy because it's a dick move on the part of any DM. If I play with one I sure as hell am not going to write any backstory because it's going to be useless.
One of the selling points is that for all it's large size everything they need is in the book. Tell them that unless they are running the game they don't need to learn everything. As well I think you can still get 5E Hero System Sidekick. It should work with 6E as there are not many changes between 5E and 6E. A link:https://www.herogames.com/browse.htm?keywords=sidekick&categoryID= -1&releaseDate=-1&available=N&book=Y&pdf=Y&characterPac k=Y&multiBook=Y&other=Y&damaged=Y . It's only about 75% of the hero system rules yet also a fraction of the size. Some of the art in at least the 5E products was not that great for Hero. They could get by in other generes like Fantasy and Sci-Fi. With Champions competing against M&M that has better art it does not help matters. Granted PF is more popular. Try to generate more interest. If not try to find a new group that maybe interested.
Every time I have a character die I get upset but I get upset in a good way.
So do I think a whole bunch of players. As well as some who take it too far and become upset as well. It's impossible to say for sure which sides happens more often.
True. In the end sometimes bad dice rolls and poor decisions take on the part of a player.
No I don't want my DM to give me plot armor. I also don't want the DM stacking the odds against me because it might hurt his special snowflake of a NPC. Or that a player or the entire party decide not to allow themselves to be railroaded by the DM then get punished because of it. Or because the DM is one of those who takes pleasure in player deaths and TPKs.
More often than not it's the players fault. Sometimes very rarely the DM can force the issue as well.
With George Martin getting angry and upset when you ask when the next loved one will die.
I have to agree. Up until the third book the character deaths enhanced the story. Having read book four a few months back. It feels like Martin has no clue what to do with certain characters and is killing them off just for the sake of not knowing what to do with them.
If it all depends on how a character dies. If a character dies because the player made a poor decision even after a warning from the DM. Or refuses to listen to any of the players advice and charges ahead. Or a dumb death then imo a player cannot and should not complain. If as a DM I warn you that in the next room the odds are going to overwhelm the player and the player charges in anyway. Well the characters death is on him.
If the DM either targets a player without a good reason. And no "because I'm the DM" is not a good reason to kill off characters. Or goes out of his way to either make a encounter too difficult. Makes it impossible for a player to survive no matter how good the roll on the dice are. If a player stays behind to save the party it's a heroic death. If the player arrives at a bridge. It suddenly collapses behind the player. When a player made sure it was solid. Traps a pc in a room with no exit then imo it's a dick DM move. Or allows a player to make a different concept than a core race. I'm going to question the DM on such a character death. Even if it's not my character.
A good example is a player with Leadership who kept sending his Sorceress cohort into situations she had no place being in. Without even casting any protective spells. Well none of us at the table questioned the DM decision to bump off the cohort. The DM gave the player plenty of chances. Not only that we raised the cohort with the player pretty much told if he keeps making the same poor decisions he is paying out of his own pocket ot bring her back next time. Now if the DM went out of his way to target the cohort even at the expense of other characters then yes I would question the DM as to why his enemies ignore the Cavalier in full plate at the table and making a straight line for the Sorceress.