Black Pudding (Yummy)

[Lynos]

Hey folks

Tough battle last session with a Black Pudding. Some issues came up that I had to resolve on the spot, so coming here to pick your brains about it.

1) one of the players, which was grappled by the Pudding, asked me: "if I attack it and hit, and it splices, won't it release me from the grapple automatically?" I could not find a reason to not make it so since it seemed logical to me, so I ruled that it's possible. I could not find any corroboration to that in the rules, not in the Black Pudding stats, and not in the Grappled entry. What do you think? Does a Black Pudding lose its Grapple when it's spliced?

2) another question from the players: "when they splice, and become smaller, they attack with the same force"? This time I ruled that yes, their attack doesn't change, because there was only one Offence entry in the stat block. However, does it really make sense that when a Black Pudding splices, and is now smaller with less hit points, that his offence capability will still have the same attack roll and the same damage? I mean, when I look at Enlarge Person for example, the offence and defense capabilities change with the change in size. Why wouldn't it be same for a creature that become smaller as it's hit repeatedly? But there is no mention of anything like that in the stat block.
What's your take on this?

Thanks!

[Val'bryn2]

I would rule that you're still grappled, you just slice off a portion of it.

As for 2, just because they splice does not mean they are really "smaller", they don't change size categories, so they don't lose offensive capability, in the same way that a fighter doesn't lose offensive capability after taking HP damage.

[blahpers]

1. Nope, but there's nothing wrong with ruling it so.
2. This is not really a rules question. The design answers, if I had to guess, are probably "because tracking changes in Strength, damage die, and/or so on would be a royal pain" and "because a black pudding's split ability is supposed to make the battle harder, not just messier". Note that as Val'bryn2 mentioned, black puddings don't split into smaller puddings--they split into "two identical puddings" with fewer hit points.

[Lynos]

I see.
I described them to my players as being smaller, because I wanted to give them a visual clue that the spliced portions of the Pudding are weaker. They seemed overwhelmed and did not know how to handle the situation. I had to do something to clue them in to the fact the Pudding loses hit points as it splices without saying it outright, which lead to the question above.

I think if I didn't allow the Pudding to lose grapple as it got spliced I might have had a TPK on my hands.

It's a tough monster.

[Azothath]

Based on the title I thought someone was going to apply Allfood to the pudding after the battle.

[blahpers]

Lynos wrote:

I see.

I described them to my players as being smaller, because I wanted to give them a visual clue that the spliced portions of the Pudding are weaker. They seemed overwhelmed and did not know how to handle the situation. I had to do something to clue them in to the fact the Pudding loses hit points as it splices without saying it outright, which lead to the question above.

Hmm. Maybe you could describe puddings as less "stable" in their puddingish jiggling as they lose hit points? Like the pudding is thinner or unevenly distributed? Then when a pudding runs out of hit points it just loses its cohesion entirely and falls apart into black liquid.

Quote:

I think if I didn't allow the Pudding to lose grapple as it got spliced I might have had a TPK on my hands.

It's a tough monster.

You ain't kidding. It's accrued quite the death toll over the decades since its original printing in 1974. Knowledge (dungeoneering) can help with the threat assessment, but if the PCs know nothing about it and don't happen to use bludgeoning weapons by default, expect it to be a tougher than average fight.

Do keep in mind that it's mindless, it's slow, and its Perception score is horrible, so it's quite possible for non-grappled party members to lose its attention by simply finding somewhere to hide outside of its blindsight range--provided that they can get away from it without provoking a grab.

[Lynos]

They have a Ranger with Dungeoneering but he was not using it to identify the monster. I think he was not aware of it or simply forgot. I opted not to tell him how to play.

The room was small and became smaller as the monster spliced when hit by arrows. They withdrew barely with their lives and lost an important NPC along the way.

You know, you put monsters to challenge your players, but you can't play the game for your players.

Azothath wrote:

Based on the title I thought someone was going to apply Allfood to the pudding after the battle.

Now, if you could do that on the living Pudding, that would be something else.

[Dave Justus]

Lynos wrote:

They have a Ranger with Dungeoneering but he was not using it to identify the monster. I think he was not aware of it or simply forgot. I opted not to tell him how to play.

Using a knowledge skill isn't usually an action, while I expect players to generally prompt me when I'm GMing if they want to know something, I also wouldn't hesitate to tell them to make a roll and then let the player know what the characters knows.

Mechanically the reason that a spliced pudding doesn't have any weaker attacks is the the splice power is supposed to benefit the pudding. Basically giving it more actions of the same effectiveness each time.

If the puddings had reduced attack and damage values after being spliced it would be beneficial to the PCs to slash at it, rather than detrimental.

[Lynos]

Yeah, that makes sense, that's why I ruled that its attacks do not become weaker. I didn't explain it my head exactly as you did, but it just didn't feel right to handicap it just because it splices.

This is going away from rules discussion, but I am trying to get my players more invested in the minutiae of their characters and know their characters inside and out, and I sometimes feel that if I remind them what skills they have and when they should roll I am doing their job for them and thus they become lazy. Because when they are adventuring there isn't some omnipotent voice from above thundering YOU MAY USE YOUR DUNGEONEERING SKILL NOW. They should know what it is and when it's useful.

I did remind the player post-game that he could've used the skill, so hopefully next time he'll remember.

[Dave Justus]

Lynos wrote:

I sometimes feel that if I remind them what skills they have and when they should roll I am doing their job for them

Well, a big part of your job is conveying to the player what the character sees. The GM is the primary tool by which the player is able to apprehend the world that his character is participating in.

At times I think that can, and should, include asking them for rolls on skills that would influence that.

[BlarkNipnar]

Lynos wrote:

This is going away from rules discussion, but I am trying to get my players more invested in the minutiae of their characters and know their characters inside and out, and I sometimes feel that if I remind them what skills they have and when they should roll I am doing their job for them and thus they become lazy.

I feel like this is breaking both "Make a fun game" and "What would my characters logically already be doing"

Personally I just call out "Does anyone have Knowledge: <X>?" and have them roll at the beginning of the encounter. Why?

Well first I don't want them to call out 12 different knowledge checks trying to pin down what it's technically under. I even give them a secondary or tertiary knowledge check at a penalty if they are all missing a knowledge or maybe if they all blow it (depends how important it is. Something of dire importance they should just know or have a way of getting that knowledge.)

Think of what's fun. Asking for a half dozen knowledge checks isn't fun for them or you and it's a free action to do it, so limiting them seems unfair.. So now you're inventing a situation that requires them to ask you a half dozen pointless questions each; that they should just remember in the first place given knowledge is a binary "do I know this" check.
___________________
I essentially do the same with Perception, giving an automatic perception check when they enter rooms and running with that to determine traps and things. In addition, I don't make them "search for traps" all the time, and I often even describe things in the room (especially traps) so that they know something interesting is there.

___________________
The point of all this being; I personally think you and your players will enjoy the game more if you streamline the process of some things.

[Lynos]

Well, fair enough, but my players don't like it when I tell them stuff they perceive as something they shouldn't know. They don't like it when I tell them the DC of something, they don't like it when I tell them a certain weapon doesn't damage a monster, they don't like it when I tell them a monster has DR or SR. They like to be in the dark and figure stuff organically and not in a gamey way.
But on the other hand, they don't study their characters well enough to know exactly what capabilities they possess, so this approach has costs. I try to help them when I can and it seems fit, but as the game is a simulation, I also feel that they are more challenged if their survival depends on their capabilities and competence.

Usually the only time I initiate a knowledge check without any prompt from the players is when they come to a new place and I just let them roll to see how much they know of this place and its past, it will usually be a Knowledge History or Religion. I suppose Dungeoneering can be treated the same way. But it just didn't feel right to me. It's just that usually knowledge checks are not done under such duress.

When they entered the room and the ooze came spilling out I had three options:

1) Leave them in the dark as they like to be, and only give a knowledge check in response to a direct query. That would require the Ranger player to know what Dungeoneering is and how it can be used.
2) Ask them for a roll a without being prompted.
3) Roll secretly for them and then freely give them the info if needed.

My problem with "always rolling" is that once I tell them to roll for a check they know something is up, even if the roll failed. Maybe this method works with Perception, (even though I feel it just slows down the game when you roll it every single time you enter a room), but when it comes to knowledge checks, telling someone to roll to identify the Ooze traits immediately tells them something is up with it. They encountered an Ooze before, so their characters should remember the basics. If they don't remember, should I tell them? I dunno, maybe I'm too harsh, but I try and work with what my players seem to want.

Just to be clear, they were not angry or frustrated about the encounter, they just admitted it was tough and they were happy to escape with their lives. Hopefully they learned some valuable lessons in the process. I just came here to see if I ran it more or less correctly by the rules.

[Dave Justus]

Obviously your game style should match what your players enjoy and if they are having fun (which it certainly seems they are) then you are doing it right.

Mostly I've seen players frustrated feeling that the GM isn't giving enough info and failing to tell players things their character would know, you having the opposite problem is unusual.

In most games, knowledge checks are most commonly done under duress. You encounter a monster, you roll to see what you know about that monster. This is especially important in higher level play where immunities and special abilities a common and can make a huge difference. Unlike other checks, it doesn't 'give anything away' if they roll and they fail, since they already know that the monster. The players and characters are unaware that they don't 'know anything.'

As to whether you should rely on the players memories or the characters knowledge to an extent that is a personal choice depending on what your group likes. Many groups frown on it being primarily the players memories since that is essentially 'out of character' knowledge. If a character had knowledge dungeoneering they should have already known what an ooze is and what the common ooze traits are. The player forgetting what those are (or that his character knows it) doesn't really change what the character should know.

But, how your players enjoy the game is what matters. IF they have more fun remembering such things themselves and don't like to be told, then that is the right way to play for your group.