So I was super excited to make pun's about the OP's name, I spent a chunk of time sorting through the thread to make sure no-one else had mentioned it, only to have my hopes and dreams crushed in the last moments, ah well.
Bran Towerfall, there was a tower, and falling, hawhawhaw.
On a more serious note, this fight sounds like it could be a TPK as the BBEG plays golf with the PC party. As for your actions during the fight, it certainly seems appropriate by RAW and thematic views (this would be the midpoint in the action movie, a main character dies horridly).
Ah, I do so love crushing hopes and dreams...
Ah, I do so love crushing hopes and dreams...
Careful now, I may or may not be studying you intently...
Ah, I do so love crushing hopes and dreams...
They taste good when sprinkled on Cheerios I hear...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you seem to be missing is that the game has rules. Those rules should be applied fairly and evenly to everyone, not applied willy nilly because someone might throw a childish hissy fit.
Wrong... the game has guidelines.. Overall the game is a story telling game and whenever the story has a chance to be interesting by reason of PC actions they should be allows a chance.
Wrong, the game has rules. If you choose to not uses those and substitute others, that's great. Houserule all you want. But any GM who has a quagmire of 'guidelines' where things work one way one session and another way another session is a lousy GM.
As written in the AD&D 1st edition rule book by good old Gary Gygax himself.
What does a 40 year old quote about a completely different game have to do with modern gaming? You might just as well quote Tsun Tzu's recommendations for deployment of pikemen when talking about deploying bomber aircraft.
It does go on to say the final say on any rule lays in the hands of the DM, and I fully agree with that. However The 'rules' are simple a framework to tell a story. Usually the good stories are about Heroes doing pretty unbelievable stuff, and my personal experience shows that when given a chance to perform heroic deeds, game nights can become the stuff of legends.What do you really remember about a games played 20 years ago? The stuff you could not do because some rule said it wasn't possible, or that really cool move the GM allowed you to do, but ONLY if you rolled a 20.. and you pulled it off... Stuff of Legends...
I remember things where we pulled off something awesome without the GM bending or breaking the rules for us to pull it off. I don't remember the games where a GM broke the rules so that someone could pull a crouching tiger hidden dragon maneuver because it was 'rule of cool dude'. Anyone can pull a 'rule of cool' out of their nether region. Because they break the rules to do so. If the GM suddenly let the dragon you are fighting charge the ceiling and bring down stalagmites on everyone, that would be a freaking cool maneuver. But last time I checked 'rocks fall you all die' was a bad GM maneuver.
It's just as bad when the GM pulls the 'rocks fall npcs die' maneuver.
I was a PC in this encounter. I WAS THERE!!!
Exactly from how I saw this encounter going, I think the death of the fighter makes sense in how everything went in terms of the BBEG's intelligence. Honestly I had the same practical idea of dragging the bad guy off the building with a Chain of Perdition.
The fighter was hacking away at the BBEG, whom of which was hanging out off putting the fighter right at the edge of the building. The BBEG cast Deep Slumber, failed his saves and night night fighter. An NPC cleric with the party went over and tried to slap him awake/ cast sanctuary. GM told PC he only got one action to which the PC laughed it off knowing he only had 1 and WILLINGLY chose to cast Sanctuary. Not to wake him up. Next round BBEG rolled well over the save of the sanctuary and dragged the fighter off the building and to which we were told end of chapter. This is where it blew up with the two of the still living PC's claiming they had a million things they could do. Really the fighter just asked for the roll to see if the BBEG would get over his CMD (which easily it did since the pluses it had compared to his helpless CMD technically didn't need to roll being over his CMD even with a 1). To the request of the fighter, he got the roll and it was beat by like 18.
From my perspective, everything seemed to be fairly done. Not necessarily in the most happy way for the fighter, but it seemed fair and feasible what happened. I think it adds a good fire under the party that we are going to be encountering tougher foes who will give us a run for our money.
Anyone else notice the irony in the OP's username?
yeah kinda ironic.....don't you think?
If you don't believe me or what is written in the rules, as another summary which lays this out nicely, look at the grapple flowcharts on d20pfsrd. The move grapple action is only available to the grappler who is controlling, as part of the standard action to maintain the grapple on subsequent rounds.From a thematic perspective, I agree with Adamantine Dragon as well. Regardless, the RAW mean the minimum time taken to execute...
This is the correct answer. The proper sequence should have been:
Surprise round: BBEG attempts to grapple sleeping PC as a standard action. PC gets Perception check to wake up (with -10 for sleeping). If awakened, the PC gets an attack of opportunity (unless BBEG has improved grapple).
Roll for initiative/Other PCs get perception check to hear struggle (if PC was awakened and attacked or made a noise).
Round 1: PC gets to attempt to break grapple on his turn, BBEG must maintain grapple on his turn. If grapple is maintained, BBEG moves him off the cliff edge to fall and releases grapple as a free action and casts Feather Fall as an immediate action.
That's the proper process by RAW. If Drag was used, it's a different process. Although, I don't believe you can drag a creature into a dangerous square.
cant wait to grapple someone while im bullrushing them............
Two other pcs ( 1 former gm) went ballistic. Screaming, ranting, swearing....it was unfortunate. Even after the death was accepted, he was screaming that he could have killed her while she dropped.....
Once the two children leave, "DM Bran, it looks likes we need to find new players, or we short man quests."
1) This is a GAME. Have fun, or don't bother.
2) "screaming, ranting, swearing..." Bullying tactics. If they came back, I wouldn't.
3) The problem is not your rules. The problem is your (former, I hope) players.
In the future remember that you deserve the respect earned just by picking up the DM's mantle.
Best of luck in the future! :D
Falling. The distance fallen from a point of no movement is 1/2 x rate of acceleration x square of the time fallen. The rate of acceleration in earth vicinity is 32.2 feet per second per second, and that should apply to Golarion, too. So, from a standing start, in six seconds, you can fall:
1/2 x 32.2 x 6 x 6 or 579.6 feet. This is the number that is often used as the 500 feet for falling in a round.
Terminal velocity for a human not balled up is about 180 feet per second. This gives a terminal speed of 1080 feet per round. You get to terminal velocity between five and six seconds of falling. (v = a x t = 32.2 x 6 is 193.2 feet per second after six seconds.)
You could fiddle with the numbers a bit to get more precise, but 500 feet on the first round, and 1000 feet on the rounds following is a good approximation to use.
Meh,
This is really my biggest point of contention. Are these numbers accurate??
I don't know, but what the heck, I'll give the benefit of the doubt :P
Are they FUN?!?! NOPE!!!
The OP said the players wanted a Gandalf/Balrog fight going down... THAT sounds like fun... and frankly it's very 'cinematic'. It happens ALL the time in fiction. With the 500+ ft per round concept, spiderman and batman would NEVER be able to catch someone falling off a building, or grab a parachute and leap out a plane and catch up to falling person...
The RULES don't really allow for stuff like that... but our imagination does. I wouldn't be so quick to shoot down someones vision of awesomeness just because of rules or iniative... Frankly 'reality' would have everyone moving around at the same time in a round. All those attacks and such happen at the same time. If player A is falling off a building, then any player AFTER him should have those same 6 seconds to DO something about it.
The Chess mentality of player A move 30, NPC A move 30, Player A move 30 attack twice etc. etc. is really one of my least favorite aspects of pathfinder/3.0
Sorry for the Group fallout, and G'luck moving forward as a whole!
The rules are sound on the subject, and I don't think anybody can argue that the players were acting somewhat childish.
The thing that's being ignored, largely because the first people on the scene in this thread seem to be/enjoy killer GM tactics, and set the tone, is that the whole setup can easily be seen as smacking of douche GMing.
I think the players, though they need to be more calm and less shouty in communicating their feelings, probably (rightly) feel that this was a totally uncalled-for ambush that unfairly stacked a situation against odds of the survival of whichever victim --- err... PC was chosen as the target.
Reading through it a couple of times and reading the first full page of responses, it seems pretty clear to me that this tactic had a high probability (not possibility - PROBABILITY) of killing somebody - maybe more than was fair.
I'm on the players' side. I am a GM for going on 33 years. I understand the importance of challenge and threat of death. But would it have killed the GM to spread his tactic out over a couple of rounds? Imagine the fear and shouting and thrill at the table if everybody could see what the BBEG was up to, and it seemed like he might succeed. You can get all that - and MAKE IT LAST - AAAAAND BE MORE FAIR - by ditching the quick, certain kill, and giving these matters a little more thought. It's the difference between knowing how to dynamically run a game, and simply getting your rocks off - or proving a point - by killing characters.
The players would not know you gave them the extra round to make things a little more fair. They would just know that some jerk tried to drag one of them off a cliff.
You should read more...this takes place over 2 or 3 rounds and the players have several actions...I think the GM is slightly too nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the flip side, to me it seems like the players chose tactics poorly. They left a PC under Deep Slumber for MULTIPLE ROUNDS on the edge of a precipice during a Boss battle. Then they cry foul when the Boss gets beaten up to the point they look into fleeing and taking one of the players down with them.
Even the player who died is fine with it. (good man.) Learning Experience, and the Player who died is EAGER for the rematch/reckoning. (Best Result IMO)
On the flip side, the whole "i'd have played softball, or made em sweat but not pull the trigger, or similar styles..." aren't always what a given group wants as a general bylaw. Speaking SOLEY for my own table, my players would be furious with me if the same situation had happened and i DIDN'T have the Boss do the kick off the edge tactic. One of them likes to say often: "If you make it so we win anyways, why bother fighting it out?".
Works for some, not for others.
Meh,
This is really my biggest point of contention. Are these numbers accurate??
I don't know, but what the heck, I'll give the benefit of the doubt :P
Are they FUN?!?! NOPE!!!
The OP said the players wanted a Gandalf/Balrog fight going down... THAT sounds like fun... and frankly it's very 'cinematic'. It happens ALL the time in fiction. With the 500+ ft per round concept, spiderman and batman would NEVER be able to catch someone falling off a building, or grab a parachute and leap out a plane and catch up to falling person...
The RULES don't really allow for stuff like that... but our imagination does. I wouldn't be so quick to shoot down someones vision of awesomeness just because of rules or iniative... Frankly 'reality' would have everyone moving around at the same time in a round. All those attacks and such happen at the same time. If player A is falling off a building, then any player AFTER him should have those same 6 seconds to DO something about it.
The Chess mentality of player A move 30, NPC A move 30, Player A move 30 attack twice etc. etc. is really one of my least favorite aspects of pathfinder/3.0
To be fair to your Superhero examples, in D20 modern, I'd allow characters who can fly to charge, and most who feel a need to save falling damsels on the regular probably have the Heroic Surge feat just for the extra oomph. I'd allow those with Heroic surge to use it as an immediate action with movement penalized in the next round. Something fair to the PC and invokes heroism but that incurs a cost. In a standard setting, I'd also allow a skydiver to charge after somebody falling, and hopefully they would be high enough from the ground to catch up.
As per this situation, I'd reckon that in the future the GM may want to have a tactics sit down with the group. From the sounds of it, too many people had too many chances to help the poor guy for it to be GM's fault. A simple reminder at the table isn't bad either.
Also I'd spell it out for the former GM/current player. If he was invited back, and interested in coming back, I'd note in no uncertain terms that any conversation that isn't civil and spoken at a reasonable volume is means for banishment from the game/premises. No excuses.
The one thing that I might say is that casting feather fall probably wouldn't negate all your downward momentum instantly. As a GM if a character or creature fell 490 feet and waited until the last 10 feet to cast it, then I might do the following:
Require a DEX check to be made to make sure the caster can time it correctly, otherwise he gauged his speed wrong and hits the ground before he gets the spell off,
AND/OR
Though the feather fall spell says the spell "instantly" reduces your speed, I might rule that the spell description is written on the assumption that it is cast when you begin your fall. The speed you are at when you are 10 feet from the bottom is over 150 ft/sec. To reduce this to nothing requires a deceleration of 2100 ft/sec^2.
This is because since you would normally have only 0.067 seconds at that point before hitting the ground, you have to decelerate from 150 ft/sec. to 10 ft/sec in only 0.067 seconds. So that's 140 ft/0.067 sec, or 2100 ft/sec^2. Because I don't think feather fall was designed to handle slowing someone down by that much (since this is 12 times the normal terminal velocity) I would be inclined to say that feather fall would not eliminate the falling damage completely, though it would reduce it. OTOH, If the villain cast it earlier, say 150 feet up, then this probably would work without a problem.
Peet
My thoughts (although if the game is breaking up I suppose this is only for future reference):
Undertaking a specific action to kill a sleeping/helpless PC is one of those areas that begs for a GM wisdom check before you do it. It's not a rules question, it's a social contract sort of question. It goes to the heart of what style of game you are running, and whether the players are in the same game you are.
I personally tend to avoid this sort of thing unless I know very well that the players are able to handle it. I've read lots of threads here and on other gaming messageboards where killing a helpless PC is considered a "jerk move".
Yes, you can say "The PC had a chance and failed their CMB/CMD roll by 18!" but to the players, that doesn't really feel like a chance. The game dynamic feels just like a PC being killed by a save-or-die spell without having a chance to do anything about it.
Reading between the lines from some of the other comments made, it appears to me that there are some game compatibility issues already in evidence, and this is probably just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Should your players be willing to return to the game, my advice is to sit down and have a long discussion about the game's social contract. I would even put it in exactly those terms.
.
This. So very much this. This is far more important that what ANY rules say.
The rules are really only GUIDELINES to help you have fun...not laws to prevent it.At any time, you should be thinking as a GM, "does this add to the games fun". If it doesnt, you should try to think of another solution.
In this case, it does sound like you need to consider some of your core assumptions about your GMing style.
Try to think of it more as entertainment, or writing a story, and less a hoard game with fixed rules.
Maturity of the players certainly also sounds like an issue; their reaction seems excessive.
however, RPG is very much about "the social contract"... Finding out what sort of things people enjoy in a game, and then delivering it ...not necessarily goong by the rules , or what is written in a scenario (or even what is realistic). You've definitely done something they cant accept in their gaming.
See it as a learning experience : we all goof sometimes... Sit down and have a chat with the players, admit it was a bit harsh (although you felt you have reasons), and get some feedback.
Oh, and start practicing thinking to yourself "it doesnt matter what the rules say, what makes it fun for the players?" ...i promise you it'll improve your game immensely.
P.s hope this doesnt sound too arrogant. On the bright side, you're not the first to make the mistake, and you wont be the last... Its part of the learning process as a GM.
Pps. Think of it this way : you can break every "rule" in the "rulebook" and still have a terrific game...but if you run 100% RAW without the social contract , the game will never be fun.
The players got a wakeup call and a majority of the players liked it and had fun. Kudos. Don't be scared to give them challenging situations every now and then, because believe it or not players actually like the chance of failure every now and then. People seem to forget its not just our accomplishments that's define our character but our failures as well. The fighter went out in a memorable death and u have successfully made the group want another chance at this bbeg. Sounds to me it worked out great.
As far as the balrog fight...it was 150 ft. Wasnt gonna happen. Hell if ya watched the movie it took gandalf what like 500 ft to even get to the balrog on the way down, it wasn't instant once he fell off. So ya, just boot the old dm out, trust me it will save ya a lot of headaches in the future.
So job well done and I don't believe ya made any mistakes. Players die sometimes due to the rules, its not a mistake to kill players as long as ya didn't do rocks fall. Stuff happens sometimes and they even have the chance at getting ressurected. Glad u got some great players who can accept that.
My thoughts (although if the game is breaking up I suppose this is only for future reference):
Undertaking a specific action to kill a sleeping/helpless PC is one of those areas that begs for a GM wisdom check before you do it. It's not a rules question, it's a social contract sort of question. It goes to the heart of what style of game you are running, and whether the players are in the same game you are.
I personally tend to avoid this sort of thing unless I know very well that the players are able to handle it. I've read lots of threads here and on other gaming messageboards where killing a helpless PC is considered a "jerk move".
Yes, you can say "The PC had a chance and failed their CMB/CMD roll by 18!" but to the players, that doesn't really feel like a chance. The game dynamic feels just like a PC being killed by a save-or-die spell without having a chance to do anything about it.
Reading between the lines from some of the other comments made, it appears to me that there are some game compatibility issues already in evidence, and this is probably just the straw that broke the camel's back.
Should your players be willing to return to the game, my advice is to sit down and have a long discussion about the game's social contract. I would even put it in exactly those terms.
.
This. So very much this. This is far more important that what ANY rules say.
The rules are really only GUIDELINES to help you have fun...not laws to prevent it.At any time, you should be thinking as a GM, "does this add to the games fun". If it doesnt, you should try to think of another solution.
In this case, it does sound like you need to consider some of your core assumptions about your GMing style.
Try to think of it more as entertainment, or writing a story, and less a hoard game with fixed rules.Maturity of the players certainly also sounds like an issue; their reaction seems excessive.
however, RPG is very much about "the social contract"... Finding...
The contract is not just about making the players happy. As a GM it is hard to deliver a game that you dont really believe in. I am pretty flexible, but I can only throw so much rules and/or realism out the window, and some GM's are a lot less flexible than me. With that said, and I know I am not the GM in this case, I let the players know up front what type of game I normally run, and what I am running this time. As much as I hate to see a PC die, you won't be performing 3 full round actions in the time it takes to fall 500 feet. The GM did nothing wrong. It was just a disagreement in playstyle. I can understand the players being upset, at someone dying, but they also need to realize there is no "one way" to play the game, and to get more control over their emotions.
|
How was that sentence in any way a spoiler? I get that this thread has had spoiler but that particular sentence is at least as far as I see it completely neutral???
This entire thread needs one big, giant spoiler tag.
Let's start at the beginning, shall we?
The OP gives a description of general tactics in his OP, which in and of itself isn't a big deal, except in his very next post he states the AP and Module, as well as which encounter, this fight occurs.
There is further discussion about the encounter location, differences in tactics between what was published and how it was actually run, etc.
And in the quote I was responding to, the OP mentions that it is a large creature.
So, no, that particular sentence was not "neutral" at all. And, yes, my players, who are playing in this AP and who have not gotten to this point yet, do read these threads—especially general threads like the rules thread in which there shouldn't be AP specific information in...or if there is, you would expect it to be behind SPOILER TAGS!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kudos to your players I have to say. Who ever heard of players being annoyed with a GM that held back and DIDN'T kill them??? :D
You must have an easy time setting up reccuring villains that your players truly HATE. :D
I've never been in a group where the players wanted the GM to throw the game so they always win, no matter what. That's a completely foreign concept to me.
Apparently it's not to others though. My current GM doesn't like to go hard on us, and the group has pretty much told her to cut it out and play the bad guys smart. We're big boys and girls, and we can handle it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Houserules that completely negate the featherfall spell
I hope you tell people about this ahead of time, and not wait until they are splatting the ground for playing the game per the RAW rather than your houserules?
I've been in a game where the GM changed the rules at whim based on what seemed 'reasonable' to him, which seemed to change like the wind.
I quit, most of the other players quit. And it was the only game I could get into due to a derth of GMs. So yeah, not a fun game when people arbitrarily change the rules.
|
Falling. The distance fallen from a point of no movement is 1/2 x rate of acceleration x square of the time fallen. The rate of acceleration in earth vicinity is 32.2 feet per second per second, and that should apply to Golarion, too. So, from a standing start, in six seconds, you can fall:
1/2 x 32.2 x 6 x 6 or 579.6 feet. This is the number that is often used as the 500 feet for falling in a round.
Terminal velocity for a human not balled up is about 180 feet per second. This gives a terminal speed of 1080 feet per round. You get to terminal velocity between five and six seconds of falling. (v = a x t = 32.2 x 6 is 193.2 feet per second after six seconds.)
You could fiddle with the numbers a bit to get more precise, but 500 feet on the first round, and 1000 feet on the rounds following is a good approximation to use.
Meh,
This is really my biggest point of contention. Are these numbers accurate??
I don't know, but what the heck, I'll give the benefit of the doubt :P
Are they FUN?!?! NOPE!!!
The OP said the players wanted a Gandalf/Balrog fight going down... THAT sounds like fun... and frankly it's very 'cinematic'. It happens ALL the time in fiction. With the 500+ ft per round concept, spiderman and batman would NEVER be able to catch someone falling off a building, or grab a parachute and leap out a plane and catch up to falling person...
The RULES don't really allow for stuff like that... but our imagination does. I wouldn't be so quick to shoot down someones vision of awesomeness just because of rules or iniative... Frankly 'reality' would have everyone moving around at the same time in a round. All those attacks and such happen at the same time. If player A is falling off a building, then any player AFTER him should have those same 6 seconds to DO something about it.
The Chess mentality of player A move 30, NPC A move 30, Player A move 30 attack twice etc. etc. is really one of my least favorite aspects of pathfinder/3.0
Eh. Gandalf fell MILES into the earth. You want to know what happens to someone that only falls ~150 ft. like in this example?
This.
|
Houserules that completely negate the featherfall spellI hope you tell people about this ahead of time, and not wait until they are splatting the ground for playing the game per the RAW rather than your houserules?
I've been in a game where the GM changed the rules at whim based on what seemed 'reasonable' to him, which seemed to change like the wind.
I quit, most of the other players quit. And it was the only game I could get into due to a derth of GMs. So yeah, not a fun game when people arbitrarily change the rules.
I get you.
I had a player that would constantly interject rules discussions with "We are using (this) houserule". This would be untrue, but he would say it just often enough, to convince the DM that it was always in effect.
This is even after I would go out of my way to ask before the campaign what houserules were being used.
I now have the DM send me an email first, so I have proof later.
|
If you dislike this as much as you clearly do, you should probably not play in (or run) any Paizo APs, as the tactics displayed in this instance are virtually identical to the tactics the AP assigns to the NPC. The AP itself established the encounter, established the quick kill methodology, the GM was just the instrument of fate on that day in particular. In short, the tactics assigned to the NPC are: 1) completely immobilize a PC 2) push immobilized PC off building. It's that simple.The rules are sound on the subject, and I don't think anybody can argue that the players were acting somewhat childish.
The thing that's being ignored, largely because the first people on the scene in this thread seem to be/enjoy killer GM tactics, and set the tone, is that the whole setup can easily be seen as smacking of douche GMing.
I think the players, though they need to be more calm and less shouty in communicating their feelings, probably (rightly) feel that this was a totally uncalled-for ambush that unfairly stacked a situation against odds of the survival of whichever victim --- err... PC was chosen as the target.
Reading through it a couple of times and reading the first full page of responses, it seems pretty clear to me that this tactic had a high probability (not possibility - PROBABILITY) of killing somebody - maybe more than was fair.
Also to be noted is that this is only an issue if nobody in the entire group has Feather Fall the spell or if the PC didn't have a ring of feather fall. I really find it hard to believe that a party of adventures was hanging out without any of them having feather fall while the party was still low enough level to be vulnerable to death from falling damage. That is like not having any way to harm swarms for 4-5 levels. They should have had it and especially if they were near a cliff.
I personally wouldn't want a DM who pulled punches. I might be disappointed sometimes by some decisions but at least there is some danger.I had a new PC get beheaded on his first round of combat once, I've been flat-footed and pounced to death by a dire tiger when I had full hp, and as a GM I killed a PC who was fiddling with a huge stone hinge on a trapdoor as a party member above accidently triggered the trap....again, and killed a lot of other pcs in ways that may be less than heroic ends, but it happens. PCs make mistakes, monsters hit extra hard, the environment plays a part in game....all things that happen to the detriment of the players. If the GM keeps kid gloves on all the time we should just be able to "reload" the entire combat if we want a better outcome. I would hate a game like that.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This entire thread needs one big, giant spoiler tag.
you would expect it to be behind SPOILER TAGS!
I got spoiled in the second post, as a player in RotRL who is a day or two away from said spoiled session. Sigh
I've never been in a group where the players wanted the GM to throw the game so they always win, no matter what. That's a completely foreign concept to me.
I agree, but I think you meant "completely boring concept to me."
Sorta glad now that the RotRL game that I was in got halted and replaced with WotR. :P
You should read more...this takes place over 2 or 3 rounds and the players have several actions...I think the GM is slightly too nice.
ty but the word "nice" has not been used by two of the pcs. the character who died wondered why I didn't just coup de grace him or throw him off and keep fighting the other pcs. I really have to admire his maturity and willingness to get rez and hunt the BBEG down and get revenge.
So I was super excited to make pun's about the OP's name, I spent a chunk of time sorting through the thread to make sure no-one else had mentioned it, only to have my hopes and dreams crushed in the last moments, ah well.
Bran Towerfall, there was a tower, and falling, hawhawhaw.On a more serious note, this fight sounds like it could be a TPK as the BBEG plays golf with the PC party. As for your actions during the fight, it certainly seems appropriate by RAW and thematic views (this would be the midpoint in the action movie, a main character dies horridly).
my post name was lost on me till I read your post lol
most of the players now admit they were under-prepared and tactics poor. the deceased character is great...he wants revenge and can't wait to track the BBEG down and have an epic battle
|
|
@Bran; Hold steady! I think you did everything "right", and in fact were lenient with the party... it is not the DM's job to make up for player stupidity or hard headedness. Yes, it is a game for fun, but it is also supposed to have a sense of challenge, or nothing the players do is actually "heroic". Too easy is dull, and there are mechanics in place for healing and resurrections for a reason!
As for the former DM/disruptive player, screaming bouts of nerd rage are NEVER acceptable. Full stop. And for all of the "apologists" posting here... shame on you! Behavior like that should never be tolerated at any table unless you have one hell of a dysfunctional gaming group. I am seeing a disturbing amount of player entitlement, "bad DM for daring to make something difficult for the players and not let them do whatever they want!". Seriously, what brings about this mentality that everything should go the players' way and the DM should bend over backward to cater to them? Boggles my mind.
Anyway, I think you did fine and it seems like the rest of your group is on board so, keep on keepin' on and have fun... and let the disruptive former DM know that he has the choice of behaving like a mature adult and having fun with everyone else, or stop playing.
F!$*ing SPOILERS, PEOPLE! Think before you post.I think ***REDACTED*** earned the kill notch on her belt fair and square. (and really, she has a history of this. Check the ***REDACTED*** thread. )
Sorry for the Group fallout, and G'luck moving forward as a whole!
The OP themselves listed the AP, volume, and where in the adventure this encounter took place in their second post on Their thread. Anyone who wanted to run around screaming 'OMG spoilers' with all due respect should have stopped reading at that point, not continue through to page 5, 200 replies later. I don't think it was out of line then, and i still don't despite having it added to mine above. Thank you for the screaming outrage however.
|
Last night a sleeping/helpless pc was dragged 5 ft from a 160 foot ledge. The sleeping pc was given a chance with his cmd and failed by over 18. The big bad guy grapped the prone pc and dragged him 5ft and dropped with him 150 feet than let him go and cast feather fall as an immediate action. The party at first protested the mechanics of the drag, then protested that they would have at least 3 rounds to save him or at least kill the bad guy with distance attacks. My ruling was that the two of them could drop at least 500 feet in free fall, and since there is no way for the party to stop this from happening it just is arguing the inevitable. Casting feather fall is an immediate action that can be done anytime during the round of combat. The sleeping pc was prone and on the ledge for 2 rounds and no one in the party tried to wake him up. After being pelted with distance attacks and losing 50% of her hitpoints, the bad guy decided to escape and take one of the pcs with her. The bad guy has an int of 16 and is CE alignment.
That's a round longer than a mid- to high-level PFS scenario would grant before an intelligent CE BBEG coup de graced the prone PC or dumped him off the edge. (About the best the player could hope for is that an unintelligent monster would swallow him whole, give him maybe another two rounds before stomach acid killed him.)
Rules aside, and baring a festival of 1s being rolled, it sounds like this party just wasn't firing on all cylinders.
Never allow a helpless PC to remained unattended -- that's like, Rule 2 (after Rule 1: don't split the party, which is one way this situation occurs in the first place).
If you don't kill a few PCs in the course of a long campaign, it's just hard for anyone to get excited. Plus, it's a good long-term investment. Better one dead PC now than a TPK later when they get careless.
@Bran; Hold steady! I think you did everything "right", and in fact were lenient with the party... it is not the DM's job to make up for player stupidity or hard headedness. Yes, it is a game for fun, but it is also supposed to have a sense of challenge, or nothing the players do is actually "heroic". Too easy is dull, and there are mechanics in place for healing and resurrections for a reason!
At no point did I suggest removing challenge, i agree no challenge is no fun. Dont get drawn into reading "fun = the players get everytnig they want" , thats certainly not true.
.(so we agree on that)The point i was making is the game should be fun. Without challenge there is no fun. However, for many groups , encounters like this will also not be fun.
Each groups stumoch for RAW is different, you need to judge that.
And that is where the original gm went wrong, they misjudged the groups reaction. It happens. Its not doing everything right if someone is so annoyed they leave the group (even if they do overreact, whoch seems to be the case here).
However its not a heinous crime either. Its an experience that should be learned from. Dismissing it as "i did nothing wrong" means you dont learn from the experience.
Remember , no XP = no level up in your GM class.
At the end of the day, though, its up to the people involved whether they want to grow or to stick to what they know. I know some GMs that still ref the way they did 30 years ago..and others who have grown and expanded their skills
.
The former are playing the same ol, same ol, twenty years later..which is fine if you love the same ol' same ol... Which some do. Which is fine.
Those who have expanded their skill can both run the same ol same ol, but also run other styles. So, theyre more flexible...but they have to open their minds to this sort of thing.
Its really down to individual preference...which kind of GM do you want to be in thirty years time ? And do you think the effort is worth it ?
(Shrug) thats down to the individual. I've learned and I'm now more flexible, and I'm happy with that. i've a good friend who still GMs the same way, thrity years later, and he's happy with that...pays your money, takes your choice.
I got spoiled in the second post, as a player in RotRL who is a day or two away from said spoiled session. SighThis entire thread needs one big, giant spoiler tag.
you would expect it to be behind SPOILER TAGS!
We are playing through RotRL at the moment and I think we've just played that encounter, although maybe not.
If the encounter is the one I think (Xanesha the spear-armed snakey woman on her tower under the big arches), we had an invisible spider-climbing sorcerer spy on her and then try to zap her with magic missiles (which fizzled on her SR). He then vanished again.
With her thus distracted, the rest of us managed to pile in and engage in a very bloody and near TPK melee. I tried to Disarm her but couldn't overcome her ridiculous CMD. It just came down to a simple melee-fest from the Paladin and Archaeologist, with the Cleric performing in-combat healing to keep us going and the Sorcerer trying his armoury of spells in an attempt to overcome the SR.
In short, it was a tough fight that could easily have become a TPK had any one of the party fallen and not been able to perform their role. Had the Cleric not been healing the Paladin and Archaeologist, we would have dropped not long into the battle. The Sorceror managed to stun her a couple of times which also probably saved us.
Yet we succeeded. The very real danger of dying added spice to the encounter and a sense of achievement to the win. Had one or more of us been killed I don't think there would have been any complaints.