So last night, playing until 1am, I made a mistake (as DM) that resulted in a character's death. I'd like opinons on the situation: (5 PCs fighting a Rust Dragon, one PC down at this point)
PC 1 starts the round with 11HP and is hit by 2 claws and a bite. PC 1 takes 13 points of damage from the 2 claws (6 & 7 respectively) and is reduced to -2. The bite did 12 more points of damage bringing him to -14.
Would not the Rust Dragon, being the smart cookie that it is, have directed its bite attack at the heavily armoured foe with the greatsword standing 10' away? Would you (as I did) have the dragon then hit an already disabled target with it's bite. I have always ruled that people are able to change their targets with the first target drops from a hit. Should, would you, retcon this to say the character lives? Comments please!
I think I would keep it the way it is. What you propose might be better for the character, but in the long run, worse for the party. They may still rally and kill the thing, and you may find some way to bring the character back, but nothing you did was really a mistake. The dragon simply performed a "technical coup de grace."
Furthermore, if you redirected the attack, you might end up severely wounding another character, that later ends up dying. In the end what you did might seem better for one character, but then be worse for the party.
If you are going to "retcon" anything, I would come up with an in-game way of raising or ressurecting the character, rather than saying they never died in the first place. Mind you, had you actually made a rules mistake or done something that you shouldn't have that way, I could see what you propose, but not in this case.
A retcon is unnecessary.
The rust dragon, being a 'smart cookie' would know that the greatsword-weilding armoured foe 10' away is less of a threat than a foe close enough to strike with a weapon or touch attack.
Also, a dragon would know two foes are more dangerous than just one. The downed character may be disabled, but healing magic could potentially revive him or her, making them a threat once more.
You made the right decision in having the dragon ensure the kill of a foe close at hand. It is both tactically and strategically sound.
I'd agree that if you feel a need to rectify the character's death, it should be done by an in game fix rather than a retcon.
If you are going to "retcon" anything, I would come up with an in-game way of raising or ressurecting the character, rather than saying they never died in the first place.
Absolutely. Situations like this are sometimes an opportunity for GMs to pull out some mojo and add deapth and color to their stories. If ressurecting the guy is what you are planning on doing, look through the characters back story or even current deeds to see if you can find anything that would give a powerful being a reason to ressurect him. Do something that will make the players go "wow!" or do something mysterious that will make the players wonder what is really going on. Could be a jump start for a whole other campaign. Another option (though slightly more malevolent) is to have an evil being come to the characters soul and offer to ressurect him in exchange for a favor later on.... Whatever you do however, try to weave it into your story somehow.
So last night, playing until 1am, I made a mistake (as DM) that resulted in a character's death. I'd like opinons on the situation: (5 PCs fighting a Rust Dragon, one PC down at this point)
PC 1 starts the round with 11HP and is hit by 2 claws and a bite. PC 1 takes 13 points of damage from the 2 claws (6 & 7 respectively) and is reduced to -2. The bite did 12 more points of damage bringing him to -14.
Would not the Rust Dragon, being the smart cookie that it is, have directed its bite attack at the heavily armoured foe with the greatsword standing 10' away? Would you (as I did) have the dragon then hit an already disabled target with it's bite. I have always ruled that people are able to change their targets with the first target drops from a hit. Should, would you, retcon this to say the character lives? Comments please!
The DM NEVER makes a mistake on the table. A good DM in my opinion never goes back, whether he erred for the PCs or against them. It is not easy for a lot DMs (myself included)because a lot of DMs secretly cheer for the PCs. But if PCs do not die even by accursed bad luck then you rob some of the excitement from the game.
As a DM I always go for a downed PC. My players know this and will step in to try and stop advisaries from finishing of a PC. Believe me some one goes down, my players scramble to get the fallen character out of harms way.
For me as a player, that sense of lose when my character dies is part of the game. That fear of lose adds to the tension in combat or making saving throws.
Of course, the reverse retcon is worse. I have a player who has real problems with organizing his characters (I'm constantly checking his character's for mistakes). We were in a battle where he was fighting a cursed undead treant and was hit in combat. He failed the saving throw and I described his character turning into a living statue of wood. He then found the tiny typed script that gave him a bonus to his saving throw and I was forced to reverse the decision (it was too late to take the description back, but too soon to say no to him finding the information). It was all legitimate, but it angered me greatly because it took the surprise away from the encounter and was not the first time it occured.
I'm actually surprised that the rust dragon in the encounter described above didn't go after the heavily armored fighter first. Did the rust dragon use its breath weapon? The mistake might have been targeting the less armored character first.
|
Of course, the reverse retcon is worse. I have a player who has real problems with organizing his characters (I'm constantly checking his character's for mistakes). We were in a battle where he was fighting a cursed undead treant and was hit in combat. He failed the saving throw and I described his character turning into a living statue of wood. He then found the tiny typed script that gave him a bonus to his saving throw and I was forced to reverse the decision (it was too late to take the description back, but too soon to say no to him finding the information). It was all legitimate, but it angered me greatly because it took the surprise away from the encounter and was not the first time it occured.
I'm actually surprised that the rust dragon in the encounter described above didn't go after the heavily armored fighter first. Did the rust dragon use its breath weapon? The mistake might have been targeting the less armored character first.
It's up to a player to track their character's abilities. In that case I would have made him keep the negative statis as a lesson to know your character's stats. I have A couple people in my group who have to add up their "to hit" bonus EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT THEY ATTACK. If they forget about a +2 bonus that would result in a hit after the damage is done then the miss stands. These 2 are front liners so it is especially annoying that they don't know about their own combat capabilities.
If a player doesn't have the +'s added up by the time the damage is done then they don't get the +'s retroed in.my 2
FH
Of course, the reverse retcon is worse. I have a player who has real problems with organizing his characters (I'm constantly checking his character's for mistakes). We were in a battle where he was fighting a cursed undead treant and was hit in combat. He failed the saving throw and I described his character turning into a living statue of wood. He then found the tiny typed script that gave him a bonus to his saving throw and I was forced to reverse the decision (it was too late to take the description back, but too soon to say no to him finding the information). It was all legitimate, but it angered me greatly because it took the surprise away from the encounter and was not the first time it occured.
...
It's up to a player to track their character's abilities. In that case I would have made him keep the negative statis as a lesson to know your character's stats. I have A couple people in my group who have to add up their "to hit" bonus EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT THEY ATTACK. If they forget about a +2 bonus that would result in a hit after the damage is done then the miss stands. These 2 are front liners so it is especially annoying that they don't know about their own combat capabilities.
If a player doesn't have the +'s added up by the time the damage is done then they don't get the +'s retroed in.my 2
FH
I have to agree with you Fake Healer? If a player can't remember his bonuses at the time he needs it and fails, he fail. To me it is part of the game to be prepared. As A DM I will not go back and redo an encounter gone bad for an NPC because I forgot about some circumstance bonus, that could have made a difference. If I did players would be upset.
Some players get upset at this put they learn to be prepared. Some after gaming with me for years still b@@@hwhen I do not redo with forgotten bonuses? Heh. SOme players never learn.
I'm not so sure that you should be so quick to say your decision was a "mistake". Apart from the philosophy that there is no such thing as a DM mistake (since as DM you are master/controller of the universe), which character is victim to the dragon's bite attack is completely subjective. It is your job as DM to "run" the monsters, deciding on their appropriate actions and tactics. In your case I think there could be legitimate argument for either choice by the dragon. If any creature (or PC for that matter) is focused on one target for multiple attacks it is not an easy matter to suddenly switch targets mid-attack. Though the dragon certainly has the wisdom and self-control to accomplish this feat, there's no hard fast rule saying it would or should do so. The fact of combat (certainly in real life and arguably in fantasy) is that opponents don't always make the wisest decisions or the best, most effective use of their weapons/resources in the heat of battle.
More importantly than all that, however, even if you feel guilty that you made a poor choice resulting in the unfortunate PC's death, are the implications of doing any kind of retro-correction. I think allowing said character to avoid the bite attack (or redirecting it elsewhere) and thereby undermining your own authority is a huge mistake. You (as the DM performing as the dragon) made a judgement call; you HAVE to stick to it (even if you believe it wasn't completely fair or accurate). If you allow "corrections" like that, you are going to open yourself up to all kinds of problems. No player likes when his/her character dies or some other serious circumstance affects them, but if logical argument (or discussion, if you prefer the word) might result in a reversal of unfortunate events then most players will try to take that chance. Then you've got chaos and anarchy on your hands with everyone wanting to second-guess any possible negative decision you make. Game play will break down, stars will implode, the time-space continuim will unravel ... well, ok, maybe not all that serious but you get the point.
Players need to trust the DM to try his/her best to be fair and portray monsters/opponents accurately, especially in battle. But the whole fantasy multiverse exists and all game mechanics function under the axiom of "what the DM says happens, happens". If I (as DM) say that the rust dragon bit you, resulting in your gruesome death, when this was unneccessary since you were no longer a threat at that instant, then ... well, I'm sorry but that's exactly what happened (taps plays in the background) and we're not going to waste time or effort even considering what might have happened had I (as the dragon) chosen to act differently.
As a post-script, I might consider easing my guilt (as DM) and appeasing the player by making it as simple as possible for said character to be resurrected or replaced or whatever.
It's up to a player to track their character's abilities.
Really, yah. Not keeping track of your characters abilities is pretty discourteous to the other players at the table. I can understand having to do some quick number crunching in strange situations, but such basics like BAB, saves and memorized spells should be kept available (theres a spot for it on the sheet for crying out loud)
Anyhow, all GMs make errors, good GMs error in confidence. It's like any performance. Unless the audience knows the scipt, they won't know if you made a mistake. When I make a stupid mistake that the players notice, I try to weave it into the story somehow. That way when the players find out what was going on they say "wow! So there was a reason for that!" The trick to doing this successfully never letting people know you messed up.
Going back and saying "things actually happened differently" is rarely a good idea, unless the players will all be happier at the change than they will be baffled by it. One reason for this is that changes tend to have knock-on effects, which leads to an "If this were different, I would have done this" sitution, and that's not easy to adjudicate.
In that situation, if I were the dragon I would use the final attack on the second opponent to kill him quicker. It's more advantageous to wound a living opponent than to kill a downed opponent; the downed opponent might get back up again with magic, yeah, but if this other guy kills you before that happens it won't matter. This is perhaps me leaning on the side of less lethality.
I want to thank everyone for the comments and opinions on the situation I presented. One thing I forgot was that the other PC with the greatsword actually had reach and was a direct threat to the dragon (much more so than PC1 - it was a Monkey Gripped Large greatsword - 3d6+6 damage!). The dragon was doing reasonably well and was just trying to drop as many melee PCs as possible before taking out the very ineffectual archer PC. In the end I decided to do the 'retcon' (it was at the very end of the combat - the dragon was killed by the cleric with her Flame/Frost longsword on the next initiative action so even if the greatsword PC went down it had no effect on the battle's outcome). The character is one all of the players really like, myself inculded. He had been through a lot too so it would have kind of sucked to have him killed then. Later maybe but right now there are at least 2 plot threads I want to follow up with this PC so the 'retcon', small and unobstrusive as it was (imo), is going to stand.
Thanks again for all the advice and opinions!
|
|
I want to thank everyone for the comments and opinions on the situation I presented. One thing I forgot was that the other PC with the greatsword actually had reach and was a direct threat to the dragon (much more so than PC1 - it was a Monkey Gripped Large greatsword - 3d6+6 damage!). The dragon was doing reasonably well and was just trying to drop as many melee PCs as possible before taking out the very ineffectual archer PC. In the end I decided to do the 'retcon' (it was at the very end of the combat - the dragon was killed by the cleric with her Flame/Frost longsword on the next initiative action so even if the greatsword PC went down it had no effect on the battle's outcome). The character is one all of the players really like, myself inculded. He had been through a lot too so it would have kind of sucked to have him killed then. Later maybe but right now there are at least 2 plot threads I want to follow up with this PC so the 'retcon', small and unobstrusive as it was (imo), is going to stand.
Thanks again for all the advice and opinions!
As an aside, I don't think that character with the large greatsword had reach (unless you are playing a variant house rule). A greatsword, irrespective of its size, isn't a reach weapon. A larger character (like an ogre) has reach by virtue of being big, but his sword doesn't have reach (otherwise he'd have 20' reach). If you look at creatures with the Powerful Build (or whatever its called) feature like a half-giant or a goliath, while they can use a large weapon they only get the extra damage, not the reach. I would suggest Monkey-Grip would have the same effect.
Re the retcon, I'm inclined to agree with you. If you run a campaign where the characters and plot are tied in together, a character death can be a headache. While it feels like cheating, it might be the best thing to do (as a DM) to keep the campaign from derailing.