| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an ooze. It isn't intelligent, so it will just absorb/eat/consume/dissolve them. They are not waking up.
Unless some other NPC wanders by and chases off the ooze, those PCs are going to be absorbed into the collective. Maybe the next group of heroes will discover the notes they left back at the inn.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would be charitable and randomly roll (or let the players do so) to see which body it feasts on first. Surely it is reasonable that like any creature the Ooze will eventually "be full" for the moment and would move on or rest before starting to devour the others. Depending on how you as the GM want to do with this but I think it's reasonable to have at least part of the party wake up some hours later only to find that one or more of their friends is now a bloody smear, hair, crushed equipment soaking in a streak of disgusting pus leading out the western door.
I'd personally would have it consume the least armored characters first.
A -5 Intelligence modifier doesn't mean it won't act on instinct, which is to consume all blood within its vicinity. It might even use the new bodies as new homes to travel between and try out. But really, those PCs are goners.
I will say that this is probably the hardest encounter in the AP. Even the final two fights are easier than this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do the players want? Are they still exited about their current characters?
If for some reason it has recently eaten, perhaps it doesn't consume them, and it can ooze off to a corner. Allow one of the players to wake up surprisingly soon. Allow them to remain quiet and give first aid to the others, and when they are all conscious run. Have the near death experience impart a condition on them for a day/week that can't be removed through means other than time (or extreme-high level magic). (not sure timing on Plaguestone, haven't gotten to play in it, so don't know if a long condition would be too impactful. It could be a standard condition, or it could be custom. Be it fatigued, clumsy, hampered 5, or could be something like can't hold a weapon in second hand, or can't do an action that bundles a movement with another action. Something so they can play up the near-deathness of it, but retreat, heal up and go on.
If one or more of the players would like to rebuild. Consider allowing some of them to die, and allow an entrypoint for new characters to come in to replace them, and back them up. Again, this contributes to teh story of the adventure being deadly, but doesn't dictate a particular punishment on them.
I remember being in a play-by-post game where we kept losing players to real-world issues. We were fighting some goblins, so frequently the players that left, found themselves getting killed by opponents. It made the story have a very lethal feel to it, but it really built up a strength of the surviving characters working together. Use the circumstance to try to make the story more interesting.
If you need an excuse, maybe something else catches the creature's attention. (something was watching the battle and was sneaking in to steal something at the last minute, but the characters when down to soon, and they creature got caught, and the ooze is now slowly digesting the creature that was trying to use the characters as a distraction)
It can be improbably, but believable circumstance which could let the characters live and tell the story.
It's a TPK, so you're pretty much gonna do whatever you'd do for a TPK. Nothing special for oozes or Plaguestone.
In general, I believe some continuity in the party is always good, and I think the suggestion above to have it be satiated after consuming N characters and allowing the other 4-N to survive is a decent one.
For example, the N replacement PCs wander into the cave somehow and pull the 4-N surviving PCs back out, and the adventure continues.
Without the intervention of a third party, they are doomed. At the very least, the ooze is probably going to at least hollow one person out and use it as a new apartment suite. Which might lead to a second TPK when the party wakes up and tries to help their 'injured friend'.
As far as alternatives... It looks like it is time to bust out a tribe of "blood ooze raising" kobolds.
I think that could work out. The ooze seems like a fairly decent deterrent at low levels, and I am pretty sure that random creatures eaten by the ooze might technically still be edible (it is just drained of all blood, and possibly dried out- instant jerky?)
I would really avoid killing just half of the party. This is a TPK, so they all go back to character creation. Saving half of them because of some deus ex machina looks extremely unfair for those who die.
Whatever happens, your players know they have failed. If you have a valid reason for the ooze not to eat all of them, it can be acceptable to save them. But saving them just because, or just some of them, I find that really unsatisfying as a player.
Saving half of them because of some deus ex machina looks extremely unfair for those who die.
It depends on the players. Some people are more attached to their characters and some are itching to rebuild.
When I played this encounter, we probably should have been TPKed. The GM allowed one character to sacrifice himself so the rest of us could run. One player switched characters voluntarily and I ended up rebuilding (the fight showed us how badly prepared we were in general).
saving them just because, or just some of them, I find that really unsatisfying as a player.
Again, I think it depends on the player. If the group gets TPKed near the end, it could be even more unsatisfying for a faceless SWAT team to swoop in and finish off the BBE or to quit the campaign and let the BBE go free. Some players might just shrug and say gg nm, others may insist that Evil Tyrant McOrphanstabber be beheaded with the Holy Sword of Orphanstabberstabbery even if they're just creating a new paladin for one fight.
I always appreciate continuity and closure, so while dei ex machini aren't ideal, I'd probably take it over other options.
Yeah, I'd say this is a TPK. That was one of the nastier fights in the adventure, especially with the events that lead into it and what happens simultaneously. The blood ooze is going to want to consume ALL blood within its vicinity to increase its own mass, and without anyone intervening - the only question is how long it takes to drain all the blood out of the party, hide in one of their bodies, and then burst out to attack whatever creature happens to find the party.
While I agree generally, that this is probably a TPK with rerolls required
** spoiler omitted **
Well, that kinda depends...
It depends on the players. Some people are more attached to their characters and some are itching to rebuild.
That should be handled on session 0: Do you want the campaign to be deadly or not?
But once you are at a situation where there should be character deaths, having the GM playing god and deciding what characters die or not depending on their respective players will certainly lead me to leave the table.Because now it's personal. The GM killed my character not because of the story, the game, my character actions, they killed my character just because of me, the player.
The GM must be impartial. Making it personal is dangerous GMing.
I always appreciate continuity and closure, so while dei ex machini aren't ideal, I'd probably take it over other options.
If you want to cheat to avoid character death, do it. But don't show that you cheated. You can cheat on damage rolls, on attack rolls, you can use weaker actions for your monster, there are tons of ways to save your characters that are satisfying. Showing your players that you won't kill their characters even if you should is just a weak move, you kill the feeling of danger.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just announce it as a TPK, then ask the players what they would like to do.
If everyone wants to make new characters, then that's what happens. If everyone is too attached, someone comes along and saves them. If you get mixed responses, then the help arrives too late to save some but not others.
This way everyone gets what they want. They might even help contribute better ideas for how to handle the narrative.
Just be honest, talk it out, and everything will be fine.
What Ravingdork posted, plus, players do change their minds.
People might think they're emotionally capable of dealing with character death and then realize it's not true. They might get invested in the side quests, or maybe two characters really click.
On the flip side, sometimes people realize they've made some bad choices and are itching to rebuild/restart. Or they watched a few other characters die and realize it's not so bad.
There's nothing wrong with, as a GM, saying, "This is what we discussed at Session 0. By default, I'm going down our prearranged path, but I want to leave space for a new discussion."
It just depends on the players.
These adventure paths are too much of an investment to let a simple thing like a TPK get in the way of everyone's fun.
I can't imagine tossing out 2-6 and moving on to a different AP just because everyone died in the first one. (Not unless everyone wasn't enjoying it.)