Ok thanks guys. Color me informed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't actually address all of the details of what happens when monsters die. It's a valid call that some may clench up when they go into rigor. Now there is some contention that your DM may or may not have been fiddling with the suffocation rules. That's not something I'm going to judge from one person's...
This thread is where I want to hear your thoughts on a problem. The dm ignores the rules, or whatever the rules say on a monster and makes a challenge. Challenges are good, everyone likes a challenge, but the rules are broken or ignored in the process, and in this case a party member was almost killed by something that was already dead.The latest one was our party sorceress was almost killed by an already dead choker. Yeeeep. So the choker wrapped her up, she killed it with scorching ray while inside (pretty cool), but instead of the choker falling off her, it then became heavy, her char fell over (no check) and the pc was sealed inside. To get out required multiple very high str checks (1 natural 20 didn't even do it) vs. suffocation. Yes, the dead choker was set to take out the sorceress.
A battle was still raging on, so not everyone could help. When they started to try and help, it turns out multiple very high str checks were needed to remove the cloaker, because she was wrapped up tight. I did find this a bit ridiculous and asked the dm "why can't we just unroll her, how can she be sealed in?". Dm insisted of course she was. So more str checks were up.
Then the dm shortcut the suffocation rules, and told her she was running out of air quicker than she should have been (her st was poor, her con was not) by the rules. We got her out, just before she would have suffocated (requiring two melee chars to do it) and without our help she would have died (good luck making those multiple high str checks with 10 str).
>:(
Some found it a bit entertaining. I found ignoring the rules very annoying.
Eager to hear what you all have to say.
It is still a very poor game design choice.
This situations completely takes away the player's agency.
It is an impossible challenge for the characters (roll of 20 doesn't fix it), and the player has no way reason to expect this or seems to have been given any way to predict it (it just happens, it's not in the rules, and as far as we know she was given know skill check to realize it was going to happen).
Virtually impossible challenges for individual characters are legitimate when it isn't the only option, and there's still a CHANCE of success, but forcing a player into a situation where there is NOTHING they can do to escape? Bad decision. Even if the players weren't that bothered, the GM could have done much better.
|
Actually, in my recent research into the 5-foot step for another thread I found this example. The 3.0 PHB frequently had examples to clarify this 'whole new rules set', and these examples were cut from later editions because the ideas weren't new or strange anymore and the space was better used for other stuff.
The actual 3.0 example was:-
If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more move-equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action. For example, if Tordek is on the ground, he can stand up (a move-equivalent action), move 5 feet (his 5-foot step), and attack.
I wish I had this to hand when I was playing; it's exactly what I was doing and exactly what the DM forbade me from doing. : /
When you've been playing for so many years, you can't always remember the exact rule that originally informed you about how a rule works, so you can't instantly quote it, but you know it's true anyway and have to do some research outside game time, so you're stuck with what happened.
It is an impossible challenge for the characters (roll of 20 doesn't fix it), and the player has no way reason to expect this or seems to have been given any way to predict it (it just happens, it's not in the rules, and as far as we know she was given know skill check to realize it was going to happen).
How is it an impossible challenge when the challenge was defeated without anyone dying? Why is the unexpected a bad thing in a game where literally anything can happen?
How is it an impossible challenge when the challenge was defeated without anyone dying?It is an impossible challenge for the characters (roll of 20 doesn't fix it), and the player has no way reason to expect this or seems to have been given any way to predict it (it just happens, it's not in the rules, and as far as we know she was given know skill check to realize it was going to happen).
It was impossible for the character in question.
It was impossible for the character in question.How is it an impossible challenge when the challenge was defeated without anyone dying?It is an impossible challenge for the characters (roll of 20 doesn't fix it), and the player has no way reason to expect this or seems to have been given any way to predict it (it just happens, it's not in the rules, and as far as we know she was given know skill check to realize it was going to happen).
How did you know the choker was dead already?
Choker's have an int of 4, it may have been playing dead.
1-2 is animal like intelligence, 3 let's you understand language, 4 is probably smart enough to have some level of cunning.On top of that stat wise there's also a +13 to stealth. The GM may have made a steal roll and used it as a play dead roll.
Plus if you're going it should just be rules as written, the scorching ray would have never gone off, it has verbal components, and rules as written for the strangle are 'A creature that is grappled by a choker cannot speak or cast spells with verbal components.'
All of that really means nothing though. To get an actual useful answer I would recommend going to the GM and asking them what was up with the encounter.
It took about 60 damage, stopped its fast activity and wasn't moving. And yet it kept a suffocating grapple on, eppur si muove.
It was impossible for the character in question.How is it an impossible challenge when the challenge was defeated without anyone dying?It is an impossible challenge for the characters (roll of 20 doesn't fix it), and the player has no way reason to expect this or seems to have been given any way to predict it (it just happens, it's not in the rules, and as far as we know she was given know skill check to realize it was going to happen).
I did refer explicitly to that single character everywhere else in the quoted section, but yes: you got me. I added an "s" to the end of one word by mistake. You win.
In all seriousness though, It's bad because not only was it an impossible challenge for her that she didn't choose to be in (it would have been one thing if a poor decision on the part of the player resulted in an un-winnable situation), but this situation didn't allow the player to play the game. Even an inexplicable impossible challenge can be made legitimate if the player has a chance to back down or run away. She didn't.
And it doesn't matter that her allies were ultimately able to get her out of it: everyone is supposed to be playing the game, not just 75% of the group.
Yep, being delayed and having to wait to be saved isn't high adventure.
It was impossible for the character in question.How is it an impossible challenge when the challenge was defeated without anyone dying?It is an impossible challenge for the characters (roll of 20 doesn't fix it), and the player has no way reason to expect this or seems to have been given any way to predict it (it just happens, it's not in the rules, and as far as we know she was given know skill check to realize it was going to happen).
I did refer explicitly to that single character everywhere else in the quoted section, but yes: you got me. I added an "s" to the end of one word by mistake. You win.
In all seriousness though, It's bad because not only was it an impossible challenge for her that she didn't choose to be in (it would have been one thing if a poor decision on the part of the player resulted in an un-winnable situation), but this situation didn't allow the player to play the game. Even an inexplicable impossible challenge can be made legitimate if the player has a chance to back down or run away. She didn't.
And it doesn't matter that her allies were ultimately able to get her out of it: everyone is supposed to be playing the game, not just 75% of the group.
My understanding of the situation from reading this thread is that the sorcerer enjoyed the encounter. Not only was she allowed to play the game but she killed the cloaker while in its grasp.
Not quite accurate. She had to wait multiple rounds unable to do much, but chuckled about it at the end.
She killed the cloaker while in its grasp, but that was when the death grip began (rendering her useless until saved).
|
|
Did I miss the part where this became an issue again? Last time I checked this thread, it wasn't the player who's character almost died who was having an issue...they actually seemed fine with it.
The player with the issue/original poster was ANOTHER character, who DIDN'T almost die, and is essentially offended on behalf of the rules themselves.
If the DM pulls that kind of s*!* with another player, that's a strong indication that he's going to pull that kind of s%%# with ANY player.
I wouldn't be happy with this just because it was someone else's PC. Mine could be next!
Then it sounds like you just need to find another group.
|
|
One problem I've consistently been running into with our current DM-- since I'm a more experienced player, he feels the need to "check" my experience by deliberately disregarding rules in order to throw me off balance. I don't mind changing the story, or even tweaking rules to streamline the game, but disregarding them entirely really bothers me. The rules are there for a reason, and if you're not following at least most of them, you're not playing the game.
This is something I really don't get. Why in the hell would your DM be trying to essentially "get you"?
|
|
...The rules don't actually address all of the details of what happens when monsters die. It's a valid call that some may clench up when they go into rigor. Now there is some contention that your DM may or may not have been fiddling with the suffocation rules. That's not something I'm going to
This thread is where I want to hear your thoughts on a problem. The dm ignores the rules, or whatever the rules say on a monster and makes a challenge. Challenges are good, everyone likes a challenge, but the rules are broken or ignored in the process, and in this case a party member was almost killed by something that was already dead.The latest one was our party sorceress was almost killed by an already dead choker. Yeeeep. So the choker wrapped her up, she killed it with scorching ray while inside (pretty cool), but instead of the choker falling off her, it then became heavy, her char fell over (no check) and the pc was sealed inside. To get out required multiple very high str checks (1 natural 20 didn't even do it) vs. suffocation. Yes, the dead choker was set to take out the sorceress.
A battle was still raging on, so not everyone could help. When they started to try and help, it turns out multiple very high str checks were needed to remove the cloaker, because she was wrapped up tight. I did find this a bit ridiculous and asked the dm "why can't we just unroll her, how can she be sealed in?". Dm insisted of course she was. So more str checks were up.
Then the dm shortcut the suffocation rules, and told her she was running out of air quicker than she should have been (her st was poor, her con was not) by the rules. We got her out, just before she would have suffocated (requiring two melee chars to do it) and without our help she would have died (good luck making those multiple high str checks with 10 str).
>:(
Some found it a bit entertaining. I found ignoring the rules very annoying.
Eager to hear what you all have to say.
As long as the option to "get out" fairly is there then it isn't a problem. The only problem is creating a situation where nobody can help you no matter what anyone does.
|
|
The rules don't actually address all of the details of what happens when monsters die. It's a valid call that some may clench up when they go into rigor. Now there is some contention that your DM may or may not have been fiddling with the suffocation rules. That's not something I'm going to judge from one person's...
This thread is where I want to hear your thoughts on a problem. The dm ignores the rules, or whatever the rules say on a monster and makes a challenge. Challenges are good, everyone likes a challenge, but the rules are broken or ignored in the process, and in this case a party member was almost killed by something that was already dead.The latest one was our party sorceress was almost killed by an already dead choker. Yeeeep. So the choker wrapped her up, she killed it with scorching ray while inside (pretty cool), but instead of the choker falling off her, it then became heavy, her char fell over (no check) and the pc was sealed inside. To get out required multiple very high str checks (1 natural 20 didn't even do it) vs. suffocation. Yes, the dead choker was set to take out the sorceress.
A battle was still raging on, so not everyone could help. When they started to try and help, it turns out multiple very high str checks were needed to remove the cloaker, because she was wrapped up tight. I did find this a bit ridiculous and asked the dm "why can't we just unroll her, how can she be sealed in?". Dm insisted of course she was. So more str checks were up.
Then the dm shortcut the suffocation rules, and told her she was running out of air quicker than she should have been (her st was poor, her con was not) by the rules. We got her out, just before she would have suffocated (requiring two melee chars to do it) and without our help she would have died (good luck making those multiple high str checks with 10 str).
>:(
Some found it a bit entertaining. I found ignoring the rules very annoying.
Eager to hear what you all have to say.
Exactly!
This is when a lot of muffled grunts and noises informs the other members of the party to help the trapped person out.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm on the side of ignoring rules as long as players don't get killed. While death happens in the game I want it to be epic. Not because some low level creature kills off my character. I ignore soem rules myself at ther table. I also take a good hard look at the rules I will ignore to make sure no players die because of it. I have a Gunslinger in my game. I have had to triple the HP of some of the creatures or he one shots too many things too often. At the same time I can't do that to every creature or it results in a tpk.
Not quite accurate. She had to wait multiple rounds unable to do much, but chuckled about it at the end.
She killed the cloaker while in its grasp, but that was when the death grip began (rendering her useless until saved).
This, but regardless, everyone ultimately being able to laugh about it in the end doesn't make it a good choice to pull this on a player. A player mildly miffed for 30 minutes and then able to laugh about it later is about the best possible outcome. If this is done repeatedly, or done with a different group, it can and probably will end up a lot worse.
And I am of the opinion that she would have had more fun, and the encounter would have been more memorable, if this was done differently. Every "failed" check could have been making the questionable death COULD have made it progressively weaker, signified by description of slight ripping and creaking sounds, or some-such. Even if she didn't break out of it, her attempts would be accomplishing something. If she did, it would be a triumphant moment that made her feel good then and remembered fondly later, as opposed to just something frustrating then that's laughed about later.
Sigh. Dm broke some rules again. First background, then the problems.
Met a very powerful inevitable that killed one of our npcs with an insta-kill lever trap, but then we were meant to ally with it to fight a greater evil. Two of the party of four turned against the inevitable, and the other moved to deal with the great evil mosquito "demigod". The dm tried to really discourage us from fighting this inevitable that killed our pal, but eventually through stubborness and good rolls we took it out.
Alas we didn't take out the evil mosquito, so we will have to do some quick talking next week not to die immediately. The inevitable having left us a bit thrashed.
So, rules. Okay the AC of the inevitable (which it looks like it was a marut) was all over the place. The AC moved around and around so who knows what the dm was actually setting it as. We are level 9s, and it a CR 15. Hitting was hard but I am not complaining there.
For much of the battle the inevitable was the star of the show. Breaking action economy rules observed to do this. Look how cool this inevitable is guys. Really tried to set it up as superior and the rest of us as inferior (especially when we tried to deal with it, more on that later).
At the start, it pulls a lever which crushes our npc to death. He got no save, and the dmd didn't roll damage (we had just healed this fighter up). Then the inevitable did two more actions before we got to roll for initiative, and he got a few sentences in. Power word stun exposition! We had to wait through this even when asking when we could go and actually attack it to avenge our npc pal. I get the dm wanted to set the scene up, but the rules! Damn.
Greater command cast during a grapple, not sure if a concentration check was actually made. The command was not in the list of commands. It being something like halt, but not. My char could act, but just couldn't attack the inevitable for a number of rounds until I made my will save. I dub this the "you may attack anything but my cool inevitable" clause.
Ranger tries to shoot the inevitable, rolls a 1. Almost shoots our sorceress (because he was vaguely aiming in her direction), thankfully she had gloves of arrow catching.
Blindness via strike may have been altered from 2d6 rounds to permanent.
Inevitable performs a bull rush (to get a pc out of the way of the mighty inevitable) and then a charge on another opponent in the same round. What?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You cannot stop, the inevitable!
No, but seriously, wut? No save deaths are one of those big red warning signs imo, even if used an npc.
No, we don't get to break the rules.
Our characters are pretty clear in what they do, and it is all legit.
Blindness from a marut's fist is not permanent.
Bullrush and then charge and attack is doing a standard, then a full round action. You can bullrush on the end of a charge, but you don't have the actions to bullrush and then charge (you can bullrush and then move).
On 2, yes, but giving the monster a round of actions before initiative is even rolled meant that we were most certainly a captive audience, and stood around doing nothing. Watch and wait. We couldn't even roll to work out when we could act, until the marut had gone through its initial actions and spoken.
3, command and greater command are spells. The rules are quite clear on what you can do with it.
4, he has some house rules on 1s, but he has ignored his own house rules to get an attack off at a player. His change, like others I have seen, you are meant to roll after the 1 to see what happens. Well this time the good roll after the 1, didn't make it a miss, it made it an excellent attack against another party member (+24 or so).
We certainly didn't have the agency to try and save our dead npc. Or to even act directly after his demise.
We certainly didn't have the agency to try and save our dead npc. Or to even act directly after his demise.Expecting to have agency over every significant game event is not exactly what I'd call a reasonable expectation.
They didn't stand a chance though, nor did the NPC. Only upside was it didn't directly affect their character and they could still act, but its still pretty heavy handed. No idea what the npc was for.
Its also not too hot to even remove one person imo, that's why I'm not a fan of save or dies. Even if everyone else acts, can suck to be that one guy who got knocked out.
The npc was a well meaning fighter/goat herder from the local community. Named Helm (yes, like the god), he even had a character arc (from eager but naive, to cowardly, to heroic, to a canny ally).
We can't get him raised due to the set up.
Well my char was made unable to act for four rounds with greater command, but that was legit and no prob except command wasn't used as the spell stipulates it can be used (it wasn't halt, it was don't attack the killer monster you want to attack).
I guess you could say, Helm's death was inevitable...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well that went well. Dm proved he is new, but pretty cool.
He wanted to know where he went wrong, he is eager to not put in the unskippable cut scene again, he will keep track of the action economy a bit more closely. The nat 1s are new rules and were put in on the fly. He is liking our wackiness and acknowledges he has a lot still to learn as a dm.
Well, colour me diplomacied. Most reasonable dm ever.