|
Honestly, I dont agree with most here. Mainly because the enemies were so spread out. Even if recon was done, could the party possibly have realized the scope of the threat? If the party's mission is to deal with the brigands, the fact that 'this is the brigand camp' doesnt say to me that this is an extreme threat. The 'there were no survivors in the caravans' line is used in dozens of 1st level adventures, again I dont see anything that would inform players they should be wary. If you want wary players you should actually give them reason to before you start killing them.
In addition, the fact that such a difficult encounter came out little by little meant that the party was already in too deep when they could have realized they should retreat. I am all for having encounters that the party should run from, or find a way to divide. But it should be evident from the start that the party is in over their heads. From the way it is described it is a multi-stage ambush. The initial set of opponents seems fairly managable. Then new ones arrive, making the encounter a difficult one. Then even more enemies arive among the party that is already deep in a fight, at which point retreat is far more difficult. If the whole of enemies in this encounter were noticed within the first couple rounds of this encounter, it would have been clear that retreat is a good idea rather then being a few pulled dm punches away from a tpk.
To me, this party wasnt smart about what they did, but they werent exceptionally stupid either. It seems to me they were lured into an insane encounter by a dm who was probably tired of dealing with a clearly very capable party (they survived a cr 14 or something encounter mostly in tact). And if not for a few key retreats on the part of the enemy the story would have come to a screetching hault.
I guess you would have to be there. Our DM always gives options... in fact the world in itself to explore is an option.. not based off a module... Thats like a rat being trapped in a Hamster playset. The world is open to explore.. Life is Life.. if you run into something that you think is bigger than you, there is always an open door for retreat if need be.... but if the Party wants to fight then bring it!
Sure the story would end sadly for the PC's... but that will make them better next time. I guess Im being a little cold here... and thats fine with me, but I think for the most part... most people metagame and have no sense for true adventure, they walk and go thru modules being hand held, or not, but the options are clear... with many hints as to the Danger. Our DM always gives the correct hints for danger, wether its smells, visual, hearing, the tracks of many, large small, clawed, magic, non magic... etc.I myself like playing in a Realm where you never know what may befall you, thats half the adventure for me, I could be in the same small village or town, not knowing a large Orc Army is about to attack.. but there will always be options... That I know.
Did our DM pull Punches... possibly yes, Im sure he thought it idiotic for a party so expierenced to go stumbling in to a Stronghold down mainstreet... I think the party got the message.. that they better snap out of their distractions, and wake up to the brutality of life.
I guess you would have to be there. Our DM always gives options... in fact the world in itself to explore is an option.. not based off a module... Thats like a...Honestly, I dont agree with most here. Mainly because the enemies were so spread out. Even if recon was done, could the party possibly have realized the scope of the threat? If the party's mission is to deal with the brigands, the fact that 'this is the brigand camp' doesnt say to me that this is an extreme threat. The 'there were no survivors in the caravans' line is used in dozens of 1st level adventures, again I dont see anything that would inform players they should be wary. If you want wary players you should actually give them reason to before you start killing them.
In addition, the fact that such a difficult encounter came out little by little meant that the party was already in too deep when they could have realized they should retreat. I am all for having encounters that the party should run from, or find a way to divide. But it should be evident from the start that the party is in over their heads. From the way it is described it is a multi-stage ambush. The initial set of opponents seems fairly managable. Then new ones arrive, making the encounter a difficult one. Then even more enemies arive among the party that is already deep in a fight, at which point retreat is far more difficult. If the whole of enemies in this encounter were noticed within the first couple rounds of this encounter, it would have been clear that retreat is a good idea rather then being a few pulled dm punches away from a tpk.
To me, this party wasnt smart about what they did, but they werent exceptionally stupid either. It seems to me they were lured into an insane encounter by a dm who was probably tired of dealing with a clearly very capable party (they survived a cr 14 or something encounter mostly in tact). And if not for a few key retreats on the part of the enemy the story would have come to a screetching hault.
It all comes down to playstyle. I am not a fan of 'brutal' tactics in the name of 'realism' on the part of the dm. I certainly want to challenge the party, but it is never my goal to kill them, regardless of how they approach the encounter. As a player and a dm, I want to see the pc's feeling heroic, and not just getting their butts kicked. If you and your group are having fun, more power to you. But if you wanted my opinion on whether or not it's assaination or tactics, i would lean towards assasination.
It all comes down to playstyle. I am not a fan of 'brutal' tactics in the name of 'realism' on the part of the dm. I certainly want to challenge the party, but it is never my goal to kill them, regardless of how they approach the encounter. As a player and a dm, I want to see the pc's feeling heroic, and not just getting their butts kicked. If you and your group are having fun, more power to you. But if you wanted my opinion on whether or not it's assaination or tactics, i would lean towards assasination.
As I said earlier, that opens the door to a certain type of metagaming.
The DM would never TPK us, so we can charge in and he will pull punches...
I have found that my players need to feel like they are "in danger". If they think I will pull punches or otherwise protect them from their own stupidity, then they quickly lose any sense of danger. Once that happens, the campaign usually spirals down the toilet after that.
|
|
Thats toataly cool Kolokotroni, I respect your opinion. I can tell you that our DM is not out for blood and trying to kill the Party, He may be a Realistic, methodical planner, but not out to TPK the party.
I think the Party in this case as far as story goes... can feel good that they "Survived" and it should be a cold reminder that traveling to any location can be there last if they are complacent.
And your right, it does come down to playstyle... with video games pretty much taking over.. the realism is gone.... with video games you just go back to your saved game and restart... Not so with this play style I guess. You make a mistake in our campaign.. it could be your last...
Well spoken Charender!
It all comes down to playstyle. I am not a fan of 'brutal' tactics in the name of 'realism' on the part of the dm. I certainly want to challenge the party, but it is never my goal to kill them, regardless of how they approach the encounter. As a player and a dm, I want to see the pc's feeling heroic, and not just getting their butts kicked. If you and your group are having fun, more power to you. But if you wanted my opinion on whether or not it's assaination or tactics, i would lean towards assasination.As I said earlier, that opens the door to a certain type of metagaming.
The DM would never TPK us, so we can charge in and he will pull punches...
I have found that my players need to feel like they are "in danger". If they think I will pull punches or otherwise protect them from their own stupidity, then they quickly lose any sense of danger. Once that happens, the campaign usually spirals down the toilet after that.
I guess i should clarify. If the players do something completely foolish, I dont have a problem killing them. And sometimes players die. But in the end, my goal is to make them think they are going to die, and for them not to. For me the metagaming isnt an issue, as the heroes of the story are often very confident. Sure you can have the ultra careful everyman who gets through the challenges by deliberate well concieved plans, bit it isnt the kind of story i like to tell or take part in. I like my heroes heroic. And often that means charging in and saving the day.
One of the things i pride myself on is allowing for common party tactcis (whether they just charge in, recon the whole damned planet, or somewhere in between) and making my challenges difficult and dangerous to match. I can assure you my players often feel like they are in danger, because even in the case of a well planned attack, level appropriate challenges are dangerous when played properly by a dm. Making fights winable if the party just charges in, and making them feel dangerous if the party plans for them are not mutually exclusive.
But again I am fairly certain we have different styles. For me, if one of my character's dies its generally a traumatic event in the story, and at the table. First and foremost the player that is killed is now not playing the game for a significant amount of real world time. Either they are making a new character or waiting for a point where the character can be brought back to life, this means the player isnt participating in the game for a long time (hours or even multiple sessions). This to me is always a bad thing, and thus should be avoided whenever possible (baring rampant player stupidity as I said before).
I also think exceptional player tactics are meant to make challenges easier to accomplish, and not be required in order to have a chance to succeed. This is not a new concept, or attributed to video games. Ecounter design guidelines since first edition supports that players should be able to play a kick in the door style of play so long as they fight smart most of the time. There is also pretty much nothing realistic about the CR system, or the way classic dungeons were/are designed. For me its GOR, gameplay over reality. Level appropriate challenges well run by the dm makes a fun game for me. However realistic it might be for the bad guy to actually make it impossible for the heroes to succeed, to me it doesnt make a good game.
This sounds very similar to my groups encounter during Fortress of the Stone Giant's in Rise of the Runelords.
For some reason none of us could think of good way to infiltrate this huge camp of stone giant's. So we basically just ran straight at one of the watch towers attacking it. I think we killed the couple guards at the base of it, then all of the ones up top started attacking us and two or three patrols joined the fray. By the fourth round we were overwhelmed decided to make a tactical retreat. -teleport-
It was tactics, completely legit and very realistic by its description. (I'm a veteran) If you're not smart enough to recon your targets you're rolling the dice with your life. Against a decently prepared adversary you might as well be comitting suicide even if you are "higher level". Lastly, adventuring is dangerous. You need to be smart enough to know when to run or not pick certain fights.
|
|
I bet the players will learn something. I have had dm's do worse with less punch pulling. I hope the players learned a lesson. At the same time, I bet that battle was extra fun to play.
Yes indeed it was an exciting encounter, that was also Horrific within about a minute. LOL 6sec/round alot can happen.
Things get even more exciting as your group levels.. you become renown in certain lands where the Party has done most of their heroic deeds.. next thing you know you have actual Assassins, Mercenary groups, etc looking to cash in on your demise. For us, we had a Religious order come look for us because their are two Vampires in our group... even though we are looking for Magic, Arcane goodies and Adventure... You have no idea where your journey path lies with a good DM, as it is always evolving. I think the DM can make good use of this last battle, and either continue the story archtype creatively or the Party seeks revenge.. and Slays the baddies.
Vampress
I would like to point out that just because the characters don't die doesn't mean they succeed, or get out pain free either. While I will kill player characters I find that taking them prisoner, forcing them to ransom themselves, letting them see where their failure in a situation directly causes problems for everyone around them, or even possibly just the shame of failure widely known can be enough to get the players thinking again before just doing something.
If they know more than just death rides on the outcome of their actions they watch those actions closely.
For us, we had a Religious order come look for us because their are two Vampires in our group... even though we are looking for Magic, Arcane goodies and Adventure... You have no idea where your journey path lies with a good DM, as it is always evolving.
Vampress
Wait... there were two vampires in that group of adventurers? How did I miss that part? That would kind of change the make up of the group. Did I seriously overlook that part of your story?!?
Never be afraid to throw unsurmountable obstacles at the PCs that they will have to retreat from and either get help, reinforcements or come back at a later date to handle. PCs in this situation should have gotten the hell out of dodge, throwing Caltrops, Entangle, Web or whatever else they could to buy some distance to get outta sight and hide. I'd definitely rank this encounter up with the 'We're badasses' mentality all Gamers develop after a few campaigns under their belts.
Now, the Vampire would likely be able to follow and shout out directions to the minions, but hopefully the PCs would have been able to keep up the pace and leave the bulk of their enemies behind, hopefully spreading out the enemies and giving the PCs a chance to gang up on the 'bosses'. Nothing gives you a bonus to intimidation like holding up the Bandit Leader's severed, gore-dripping head with one hand, pointing at his minions with the other and screaming at the top of your lungs "You're next!".
Personally ... did the DM given any "uh, you sure you want to do that?" moments? I'm personally fond of reiterating to the PCs at the start of the campaign, and at the end of each session, that I can and will throw over-powered encounters at them if they aren't careful, but at the same time there will always be, assuming they aren't complete !@#$-mongers, allies to call in for reinforcements, items, unavailable skills or otherwise assist them.
Wait... there were two vampires in that group of adventurers? How did I miss that part? That would kind of change the make up of the group. Did I seriously overlook that part of your story?!?For us, we had a Religious order come look for us because their are two Vampires in our group... even though we are looking for Magic, Arcane goodies and Adventure... You have no idea where your journey path lies with a good DM, as it is always evolving.
Vampress
+1 you might want to clarify the races invovled here both in the party and among the bandits. (I was wondering earlier how the archers were so effective given the limits of darkvision.)
How do I shake this cursed dice thing man!?You cant - just touch everybody else's dice and unluck them level the playing field.My players won't let me touch thier dice. :(
It all comes down to playstyle. I am not a fan of 'brutal' tactics in the name of 'realism' on the part of the dm. I certainly want to challenge the party, but it is never my goal to kill them, regardless of how they approach the encounter. As a player and a dm, I want to see the pc's feeling heroic, and not just getting their butts kicked. If you and your group are having fun, more power to you. But if you wanted my opinion on whether or not it's assaination or tactics, i would lean towards assasination.As I said earlier, that opens the door to a certain type of metagaming.
The DM would never TPK us, so we can charge in and he will pull punches...
I have found that my players need to feel like they are "in danger". If they think I will pull punches or otherwise protect them from their own stupidity, then they quickly lose any sense of danger. Once that happens, the campaign usually spirals down the toilet after that.
I had that once. The GM did not want to kill any PC. And he all but said it. It would have only been more obvious if he wrote us all a letter and informed us just how much he wants us not dead!
The game was still fun, in a way, but mostly because we explored the character concepts we came up with. We certainly didn't show up for the story or anything.
At one point, one player wanted to retire his character (he was cursed with really, really bad luck), but the GM said he couldn't. So we decided to test something:
We'd just walk into one of the biggest cities on the whole continent (one that is notorious for having more epic-level citizens than many hamlets have population, and several were Chosen ones to boot) and started to kill people on the street in broad daylight. The character with the death wish would be especially reckless.
We kept that up for something like 10 minutes or so. We all got out alive. By all rights that third guard detail should have been a bunch of elite members of the watch and laminated us to the ground.
One or two characters were close to dying. That was the closest we ever got in that campaign.
It's a nice concept if you want to play Stupid Evil or Chaotic Stupid characters, but I wouldn't want to live there.
|
|
Wait... there were two vampires in that group of adventurers? How did I miss that part? That would kind of change the make up of the group. Did I seriously overlook that part of your story?!?For us, we had a Religious order come look for us because their are two Vampires in our group... even though we are looking for Magic, Arcane goodies and Adventure... You have no idea where your journey path lies with a good DM, as it is always evolving.
Vampress
The two Vampires you are refering to, are actually a completely seperate group. This thread was about another's party expierence.
I was refering to my own personal group and our encounters... if that clears things up.
cheers.
Vampress.
|
|
+1 you might want to clarify the races invovled here both in the party and among the bandits. (I was wondering earlier how the archers were so effective given the limits of darkvision.)Wait... there were two vampires in that group of adventurers? How did I miss that part? That would kind of change the make up of the group. Did I seriously overlook that part of your story?!?For us, we had a Religious order come look for us because their are two Vampires in our group... even though we are looking for Magic, Arcane goodies and Adventure... You have no idea where your journey path lies with a good DM, as it is always evolving.
Vampress
For Clarification... The Sun had set... there were torches near the entire entry way.. so The Sun was not visable at all, but at the same time it was not even close to pitch black. Seeing 210' was no issue at all. (Today at around 8:45pm-9pm go outside and look around.. maybe where you live the Sun is down.. this is somewhat the hour in which it occured.. no sun.... but dark enough for a human to see up to 300' with no difficulties) The enemies were either dwarf, Human or Elf. As I was not playing I cant tell you who was who in the battle... just that it was a mix of races.
@james maissen, to answere your question thats easy. Since The Vamp/Wizard is inteligent.. lets just say he knows the difference between Arcane Magic, and Divine Magic, therefore pointing out this to his minions is no problem... not to mention the Holy symbol around his neck... The Troops had a standing order to dispatch all Religious enemies first, then Arcane... or if the Opportunity arises.. destroy soft targets if it presents itself.... ie Rogues, Wizards, Sorcerer, etc, and delay Heavy Armored Targets if possible.
I can tell you that the DM prepares standing orders for all minions. It helps with what the Defensive or Offensive Goals for them are, and these can be completely different.
Just a quick comment about the EL of the encounter being so high. Remember that the party did volunteer to run in there without breaking down the encounter. If that is the approach the party chooses to use they cannot be too surprised about the results.
Now of course if the DM had chosen a 25 person ambush that's a little different, but if you throw yourself in the middle of a fire you can't not expect to get burned!
side note: the party was level 5 I think? I don't see how they could have survived that encounter without the dm pulling punches which ultimately encourages more haphazard approaches to encounters.
Just my 2 coppers.
|
|
Just a quick comment about the EL of the encounter being so high. Remember that the party did volunteer to run in there without breaking down the encounter. If that is the approach the party chooses to use they cannot be too surprised about the results.
Now of course if the DM had chosen a 25 person ambush that's a little different, but if you throw yourself in the middle of a fire you can't not expect to get burned!
side note: the party was level 5 I think? I don't see how they could have survived that encounter without the dm pulling punches which ultimately encourages more haphazard approaches to encounters.
Just my 2 coppers.
The entire EL thing.. is a guide.. does not mean its not doable. In my own opinion.
Magic is the all mighty equalizer... for instance..2 hill Giants.. I believe they are CR8x2 = EL of 16 vs the party of 25 5 at 5th lvl.
Challanging.. yes as they do tremendous physical damage... but they have no Magic, capabilities. If the Party has prepared PROPERLY for the area where they will be traveling.. then I say Flawless Victory for the PC's.
This particular Party would be a Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Fighter, Ranger.. with two Pets.
Just saying Im not a strong Believer in their EL system.. sure its a great guide but does not mean your ass.. as you will just because you took something on a little above your reach. To me thats Metagaming anyways.
Our world is.. if you go into a large forested area.. a random encounter could be a Green Dragon... realistic sure, would it suck, yes... would you try and exit.. a sane party would leave area. Unless its a jouvinile, or maybe young adult, and you had an advantage.
Just a quick comment about the EL of the encounter being so high. Remember that the party did volunteer to run in there without breaking down the encounter. If that is the approach the party chooses to use they cannot be too surprised about the results.
Now of course if the DM had chosen a 25 person ambush that's a little different, but if you throw yourself in the middle of a fire you can't not expect to get burned!
side note: the party was level 5 I think? I don't see how they could have survived that encounter without the dm pulling punches which ultimately encourages more haphazard approaches to encounters.
Just my 2 coppers.
The entire EL thing.. is a guide.. does not mean its not doable. In my own opinion.
Magic is the all mighty equalizer... for instance..2 hill Giants.. I believe they are CR8x2 = EL of 16 vs the party of 25 5 at 5th lvl.
Challanging.. yes as they do tremendous physical damage... but they have no Magic, capabilities. If the Party has prepared PROPERLY for the area where they will be traveling.. then I say Flawless Victory for the PC's.
This particular Party would be a Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Fighter, Ranger.. with two Pets.
Just saying Im not a strong Believer in their EL system.. sure its a great guide but does not mean your ass.. as you will just because you took something on a little above your reach. To me thats Metagaming anyways.
Our world is.. if you go into a large forested area.. a random encounter could be a Green Dragon... realistic sure, would it suck, yes... would you try and exit.. a sane party would leave area. Unless its a jouvinile, or maybe young adult, and you had an advantage.
EL isn't calculated by adding up CR's just so you know :) It's actually a EL 10 encounter I believe when you add two of the same level.
That's not the point though. If the party wanders into a forest known for having anything from squirrels to green dragons and they don't prepare themselves, they deserve to get eaten. ;) If it's a world where what ever the DM rolls appears and it could be anything from a zombie to a balor that's a little different and scary.
I've been lurking in this thread for a while and gave the situation some thought, and the conclusion I came to is that, while the party COULD have done some scouting/recon work beforehand, I think the result would have been the same, perhaps with the scouting party being attacked. This isn't a dungeon that's being explored, it's a fortified position- getting inside is going to be difficult enough, even with invisibility and similar spells. It would be different if this was territory that was being held with a few sentries and perhaps a picket line, but from what was described, this was something more. I'm not saying the party shouldn't be killed for acting stupid, or didn't act stupid, just that they had precious few options aside from perhaps attempting to bribe a few guards(which could have gone VERY wrong even when it went right) or perhaps teleport their way in(and risk appearing in the wrong place).
I've been lurking in this thread for a while and gave the situation some thought, and the conclusion I came to is that, while the party COULD have done some scouting/recon work beforehand, I think the result would have been the same, perhaps with the scouting party being attacked. This isn't a dungeon that's being explored, it's a fortified position- getting inside is going to be difficult enough, even with invisibility and similar spells. It would be different if this was territory that was being held with a few sentries and perhaps a picket line, but from what was described, this was something more. I'm not saying the party shouldn't be killed for acting stupid, or didn't act stupid, just that they had precious few options aside from perhaps attempting to bribe a few guards(which could have gone VERY wrong even when it went right) or perhaps teleport their way in(and risk appearing in the wrong place).
or stage a diversion.... If half the camp the guards are a half a mile away investigating the large bonfire where they heard loud explosions coming from, the fight becomes easier...
or make a feint to lure some of the guards away from camp into an ambush. When half the guards go to investigate the booming bonfire(TM), they get ambushed enroute.
or sneak in and assassinate leaders. A very sneaky rogue pulling a coup de grace on key enemies in their sleep can make a huge difference.
or infiltrate the camp. Lure in a few guards away from camp, kill them and impersonate them. When a fight does break out, the guards will be hard pressed to tell friend from foe.
There are plenty of tactics to use if you want to break up a larger group.
Baring that, leave and come back with friends.
IMO, the encounter was perfectly legit, because the players didn't even make a basic effort to scout the camp. If they had done that, they would have had a pretty good idea of the numbers they were up against, and could have acted accordingly.
This was a CR12 encounter for a party of 5.6 average level. Your DM does not understand encounter building rules. Alternatively, your party attacked a superior force with no preparation and no scouting and failed to retreat. I'd say you were both at fault.
I've been lurking in this thread for a while and gave the situation some thought, and the conclusion I came to is that, while the party COULD have done some scouting/recon work beforehand, I think the result would have been the same, perhaps with the scouting party being attacked. This isn't a dungeon that's being explored, it's a fortified position- getting inside is going to be difficult enough, even with invisibility and similar spells. It would be different if this was territory that was being held with a few sentries and perhaps a picket line, but from what was described, this was something more. I'm not saying the party shouldn't be killed for acting stupid, or didn't act stupid, just that they had precious few options aside from perhaps attempting to bribe a few guards(which could have gone VERY wrong even when it went right) or perhaps teleport their way in(and risk appearing in the wrong place).or stage a diversion.... If half the camp the guards are a half a mile away investigating the large bonfire where they heard loud explosions coming from, the fight becomes easier...
or make a feint to lure some of the guards away from camp into an ambush. When half the guards go to investigate the booming bonfire(TM), they get ambushed enroute.
or sneak in and assassinate leaders. A very sneaky rogue pulling a coup de grace on key enemies in their sleep can make a huge difference.
or infiltrate the camp. Lure in a few guards away from camp, kill them and impersonate them. When a fight does break out, the guards will be hard pressed to tell friend from foe.
There are plenty of tactics to use if you want to break up a larger group.
Baring that, leave and come back with friends.
IMO, the encounter was perfectly legit, because the players didn't even make a basic effort to scout the camp. If they had done that, they would have had a pretty good idea of the numbers they were up against, and could have acted accordingly.
I see where you are coming from, but most of those options leave the door open to one or another type of metagaming on the DM's side where he would be expected to play along with what the PCs did, or be heavily reliant on rolls where several things could go wrong. I'm not saying that the PCs couldn't or shouldn't do these things, just that there the consequences for failure would look VERY much like what happened when they didn't go scouting.
|
|
From what I've read from the situation presented so far, is that the encounter result came down to tactics.
1) The players did not seem to use any initially... (other than 'Hey diddle-diddle, straight up the middle!)
2) The Brigand Camp used some basic tactics... if the main camp is attacked everyone show up and defend.
Was it assassination?
IMO, no. It definitely was a very powerful encounter, with intelligent opposition. It was perhaps unfortunate that the party didn't recon, or run into a patrol outside of the main camp, but these things do happen.
Could the DM have wiped the party out... very probably. But at what cost? Remember, the brigands are intelligent, while they could push the fight, retreating into a better defensive position makes good tactical sense.
Just my 2cents.
I don't know if it makes tactical sense to form a defensive position when you have a 5 to 1 advantage. Especially considering the capabilities of the opponent are on par with your own you should be able to overcome them with sheer numbers.
|
|
Well it might have been 5 to 1 initially, but when the vampire/bandits decided to retreat it was 12 to 5 (bandits & party respectively). And for all the losses on the bandits side, they killed two of the party, the cleric and a pet...
Add the main boss (the vampire) just took a butt-load of damage and retreat sounds like a decent plan.
After all, with a vampire's fast healing, he only needs to retreat for a like 10 rounds to be pretty close to full health again... so give the party a 'bit' of a break for the vampire to recover and possibly the remaining bandits to drink some potions compared to the party being down their primary healer and almost out of potions, the short retreat make good tactical sense from the bandit's perspective.
Now if the party is still outside licking their wounds after 10 rounds... well that would probably be a TPK.
To be really mean, during the vampire's retreat for 10 rounds, the vampire could use 'Childern of the Night' ability to summon swarms or wolves to arrive in 2d6 rounds... add some 'Dominate' and maybe have the vampire melee for a bit 'Energy Drain' ... if I was in the party after they retreated running away as fast as possible sounds like a very good plan!
Time for the party to stock up on garlic, stakes and holy water! Oh, and a new cleric... :)
|
|
Well it might have been 5 to 1 initially, but when the vampire/bandits decided to retreat it was 12 to 5 (bandits & party respectively). And for all the losses on the bandits side, they killed two of the party, the cleric and a pet...
Add the main boss (the vampire) just took a b#!%-load of damage and retreat sounds like a decent plan.After all, with a vampire's fast healing, he only needs to retreat for a like 10 rounds to be pretty close to full health again... so give the party a 'bit' of a break for the vampire to recover and possibly the remaining bandits to drink some potions compared to the party being down their primary healer and almost out of potions, the short retreat make good tactical sense from the bandit's perspective.
Now if the party is still outside licking their wounds after 10 rounds... well that would probably be a TPK.
To be really mean, during the vampire's retreat for 10 rounds, the vampire could use 'Childern of the Night' ability to summon swarms or wolves to arrive in 2d6 rounds... add some 'Dominate' and maybe have the vampire melee for a bit 'Energy Drain' ... if I was in the party after they retreated running away as fast as possible sounds like a very good plan!
Time for the party to stock up on garlic, stakes and holy water! Oh, and a new cleric... :)
Thank you Mr. Hare, Yes playing villans NPC's with inteligence and realism. Hopefully when that group returns for more play they use better tactics and use their skills.. especially from the Druid and Ranger for Reconing the area... before they go barging in. I must finally say that our DM does play all characters with Intel... if they have it... LOL, and that we will keep playing in I guess what some call harsh realistic encouters... but thats life as an adventurer. I talked to our DM the other day, and asked his own opinion of this, and he replied that had the PC's prepared and tactfully encountered this scenario, they should have come out on top.. but attacking at somewhat night time created more issues that of course the PC's were not aware of, but could have been if they did any recon at all. And Yes John, if the medling PC's come back LOL I doubt that Vampire will be in a good mood.. :) Cheers!
Vampress
Thank you Mr. Hare, Yes playing villans NPC's with inteligence and realism... LOL, and that we will keep playing in I guess what some call harsh realistic encouters...
I think the point is that the DM didn't play it with intelligence and realism otherwise the party should have been wiped (the vamp could have nearly have done it on his own).
Just what I said.
This encounter did seem to be rigged in a way that maximised the chances for the party to survive.
At least from the description the Vamp used some fairly weak spells that did not cause a lot of damage and then retreated when he soaked a full round attack from the ranger that a simple spell (obscuring mist, blindness, darkness) could have prevented.
Also staying hidding (during the night high up in the sky) and summoning or dive bombing under cover a soft target separated from the group by the 20(!) Fighters would have been resulted in at least an additional kill, likely more.
This reminds me of the last time my players told me that they would never, ever, retreat or run away from a fight. They told me this, after I had written the next adventure for level six characters. It was a ship to ship combat really, which eventually lead the players to invading the bloody thing.
And yes, the thing was rather bloody to begin with. They fought through the pirates with relative ease, noting patches of madness. Especially the captain, who had apparently made himself a prophet of some elder evil. After clearing the ship, they heard a loud roaring from down below in the hold. Slowly making their way there, they found the hold was partially flooded with water, blood, and various bones and limbs. With little blood oozes and such. They fought these things, which were really nothing.
They made the mistake of going around the corner without peeking around it first. Giant monster cleaved the tank down to negative hit points in one round, and the next few rounds were of the players trying to get off the ship and back on their own ship as this thing was breaking deck by deck to the top. It managed to basically piledrive one character into the water while the others escaped.
The thing was, I didn't plan for it to be such a horrific encounter. The players just went in guns a blazing so to speak, and the first person shooter quickly became a survival horror game. Now there is this ghost ship, with this terrible monster on board. Its become such a terrible fright though, because at the end of the next adventure, it was drifting to the dead town they were end. Through clever use of the endless decanter of water, they managed to get it to drift away. Even after gaining a level, they didn't want anything to do with it yet.
Realism, is fun.
After reading through the whole thread, I think some folks are being a little tough on both the DM and the players. Without full knowledge of what happened, of course, I can make some guesses based on similar circumstances in my games. I have a very, very experienced group (four different players with at least 25 years of gaming experience each), but they occasionally have off days and fall back on the old dependable "get'em" strategy. If executed with flair and skill, it actually works surprisingly well in many situations. It works that way in real life, as well. Raw, naked aggression (pressing hard and maintaining the initiative and momentum) counts for a lot in most conflicts, be they firefights in Kandahar or board meetings in corporate America.
To me it sounds like the DM was not planning this as one big encoutner in which the entire camp mobilized to attack the intruders. He probably expected a more deliberate strategy, and had to improvise when the PCs just bored straight in. Sounds to me like he did an admirable job of realistically portraying the camp's response. It wasn't an ambush, as some have stated, as the camp wasn't expecting the frontal assault. It sounds like they reacted piecemeal, which is very realistic, and that is what saved the PCs from a TPK. As a little time passed and they got more organized, the big guns were deployed and the PCs ran into real trouble, which is again realistic.
The only thing I don't have enough data to hazard a firm opinion on is whether the bad guys retreated too quickly when they could have annihilated the party. I'm willing to give the DM the benefit of the doubt on that one, however. Remember that not all foes fight to the death. These are bandits, not holy warriors. They have no way of knowing how deep of trouble the PCs are in, or how much they still have left in terms of hit points, spells, potions, etc. All they know is that a lot of their buddies are taking dirt naps already and most of the PCs are still standing. Remember that the morale of a military unit (which is probably considerably more disciplined than a group of bandits) can be severely effected by just 10% casualties, that most units will break at 25% casualties, and that when a unit reaches 50% casualties they are generally considered completely combat ineffective. I don't apply those guidelines in D&D, because it usually makes a better story to have fights last longer before someone retreats, but I also don't use the very common "every bad guy fights until he dies in place" strategy.
As for specifically targeting the cleric for elimination, definitely fair game if intelligent opponents have correctly identified him in the heat of battle and if he poses the greatest threat (as he probably does to the vampire commander). Recognizing this, the group probably needed to do a better job of protecting the cleric in such situations, particularly if they realized he was being deliberately targeted. I might call foul if the vampire were not involved. Going after the party buffer/healer consistently in all encounters sounds a bit like DM metagaming. While it will hurt the party long-term, most enemies are going to be focused on eliminating the greatest immediate threats so they can survive that battle. This means they likely would target whoever is dealing out the most damage, be it the sorcerer repeatedly hammering them with ice storms or the fighter mowing down opponents like a combine in a cornfield. Buffs and heals, while extremely important, aren't that flashy as to attract a lot of immediate attention from folks in the thick of a battle, and sometimes have no visible effect at all, as opposed to fireballs and serial decapitations. In this case, there is a specific reason for the cleric to be targeted, but it shouldn't happen all the time.
|
|
Thank you Brian Bachman for reading the entire post, you actually understand what transpired during this brief encounter. Your reply was spot on.
To clarify a couple of things would be the following.
1. Why did the enemy run away? Answer: Their forces were getting mauled and more then half of the soldiers including a Vetran Dwarf fighter were eliminated.
1A. Also the Right flank Brigands with their Captain were just clearing the "Entagled" area in the woods.. by this time the Vampire had communicated to fall back to the lair and re-group. *Rogue follows suit from the left flank with remaining Archers.
2. Why did the Vampire use the spells it did. Reason: Realistically it needed to gauge the scope of Intruders.
Magic Missle? The Vampire can fire x4 which can drop easily any 1st level person, or if lucky a 2nd level person. (non fighter)
Enervation: Bestows negative energy, again the Playing character was lucky as the DR was a 1 on a 1d4. This could have severly hampered the PC's.
Dispell Magic: was used to assist the Brigands on the ground and tried to take of some of the buffs of the PC.... again the DR failed for the Vampire.
By this time the Vampire had to retreat because of physical damgae taken.. is it wary of the PC's yes.. is the Vampire inteligent enough to know when to withdraw and regroup, and counter attack when ready... yes.
3. To Answer question does the DM target folks all the time. No, however any Inteligent combat, both sides will try and either destroy the weakest link, and at the same time block, or incapacitate the heavy hitters. Which means the weakest link could either be a Armored person, or a softy... or the other way around.. just depends on the encounter.
Cheers!
Vampress
It's not uncommon for players to dismiss warning signs that an overpowering encounter lies ahead. How many times have we all heard, "No one has ever entered the Cavern of Mortlethe and returned to tell the tale," only to say, "That's why they call us heroes!"
A DM who plans potentially lethal encounters really ought to make his philosophy clear to the players ahead of time. Otherwise, they may try foolish stunts (like a frontal assault on a massive bandit camp)without considering that their foes might annihilate them. After all, if the bandits were 1st level warriors led by a small group of 4th and 5th level leaders, their reputation might still be quite fearsome.
Once upon a time, GMs didn't precisely balance every encounter. The game didn't encourage it (and many GMs weren't very good at it). Overpowering encounters were an occasional hazard of dungeon delving.
The rise of organized play encouraged more careful encounter design, but had the unfortunate effect of convincing many players that their PCs could do almost anything.
Aggravating that tendency, the pernicious idea spread that when the PCs lose, it's the GM's fault for failing to properly balance the encounters. "The game's purpose is to ensure everyone has fun and losing isn't fun." This idea overlooks that role-playing games are a cooperative exercise, one where everyone's input affects the outcome.
I don't think it's fair to blame the GM in this case. The players were complacent and sloppy, failing to use proper reconaissance and apparently relying overmuch on area control spells to guarantee their escape when everything went south on them. They went in fat, dumb and happy, forgetting that people die when they see exactly what they expected to and fail to look for unexpected threats.
|
|
Thank you Sir_Wulf for your post. I know exactly what you mean by complacency.
From 1st level to over 12th level characters, some good, some bad. :) I never really forget some of the stupid mistakes myself or my party has made that results in the death of a party member.
I guess the main thing is, Know your character through and through, use all skills available and at your disposal. I think the most devestating times has been when we come to play and are distracted by other things etc...or with the mindset like Sir_Wulf mentioned "Fat, dumb, and happy" everything is all good attitude... In the Fantasy world of adventureing.... Nothing is ever really easy. "evil Laugh"
Vampress.