Stilgar2300's page

So i came up with a Invasion of the body snatchers esk encounter where the PCs come across a town were nearly every NPC has been replaced by a changling and nearly everything has been replaced by a Mimic. The NPCs will act oddly to the players, sweeping the dirt road for example or eating plates (Things that could almost pass for socially acceptable). If the players choose to stay the night they will find themselves completely surrounded by Mimics and have to fight their way out, and any items they have bought will attack them (as they are also mimics).

Am i sadist for thinking this up?

Would there have been consequences if the player sticked to waiting on the others to finish shopping?

If feel like we're making the assumption that the ranger was selfish for not waiting on the other, but maybe the ranger had a legitimate reason for not wanting to wait.

It's all well and good to be prepare via shopping, but I feel like maybe players shouldn't feel like the plot will always wait for them to finish grocery shopping.

there would have been no consequences if the player had stuck around. It was literally 15 minutes into the session when they found out about the kobolds.

An update.
at last night's session the player in question actually pulled me aside and said what he did wasn't cool and the other players apparently talked to him and told him I pulled punches so i didn't kill him. He said he won't go off on his own again and thanked me for not killing him but he said if he does something stupid again he expects me to kill him.

I'm assuming these are pretty inexperienced players?

If so, having the kobold capture him with the intent of either eating him later or trading the captive to some other evil humanoids as either tribute or for some sort of favor. This could serve as a set up for further adventures, and simultaneously let the party know how unwise it is to go it alone.

If this was an experienced player, yeah, he needs to face a more painful lesson on the ramifications of making stupid decisions.

everyone (including the ranger) but two of the players are fairly inexperienced. The two that aren't I've been playing with for years so I'm semi reliant on them to police the new people.

Should have captured the ranger with the Kobolds. then he would have had to sit there and wait for the rest of the party to rescue him. This would of taught him the same kind of lesson as killing his character. The lesson being that Instead of sitting there all night waiting for the party to rescue him, in the future he will just have to sit there for 15-20 min while the party shops, a much better trade off. He will still learn his lesson but he doesnt have to deal with the harsh reality of losing his first character.

I realize this is probably over but its something to do in the future, just have the enemies capture the PC instead of Killing.

I did have them capture him. Basically held him ransom for 100 gold. The party paid, then took all his gold to recoup their losses.

So i recently started a new campaign and things were going OK. The party got the first quest (deal with some kobolds)but things got a little weird after that. Everyone except the ranger wanted to shop a bit in town and the ranger left to go deal with the Kobolds. Fine. He should be able to deal with 3 them by himself. Turns out he rolls crappy, and I roll really well. i hit him for 5 with one and the Other crits. I decide at the last minuet that the koblold hits him with the flat of his sword to cause non lethal damage. But should i have killed him? the Player was clearly about to die because of something he did. I just felt like a bully killing him during the first session. What would you have done?

I've tried using the CR system however i feel it either creates extremely easy encounters or nearly impossible encounters. If I just tailor each encounter ignoring CR i can usually gauge it correctly. I'm just curious how other DM's make balanced encounters.