Bad GM rulings? How would you rule?

[MithrasRahl]

Makes a bit more sense, but consider this: Isn't it kinda of contradictory to have a ruthless and dangerous campaign, but also make the penalties for death lighter? (aka, easier raise dead)

As for trying to trim down the party fat, that's fine, but if you're making a meta-game decision to do so, you should also make a meta-game decision on who to kill and how. If you have 5 players and 8 characters, I imagine each person has "their" character, and then there are 3 extras that either get passed around or get played by the same people. If you're going to decide as a DM to kill one of the PCs, kill one of those 3 "extra" characters so that no one with a serious stake in a character is hurt by it.

As for how: if a PC has to die, allow them to do it in a heroic fashion. Think Bruce Willis in Armageddon. There is no fun in thinking that you can save a fellow PC, only to have them die off screen in an auto-die situation.

Off Topic, but I think save-or-die spells should only be used rarely, and I stress rarely, against PCs. There should also be some warning, like if they were captured at level 4 by the BBEG, they witness him disintegrating one of his unloyal henchmen. Then, when they face him later at level 15, they know he can do it. There are many other ways to seriously endanger the party without a "roll an 18, 19 or 20 on this dice or you die"

 

[moritheil]

Otoh, keep in mind that the BBEG fled. Was it really that realistic for him to end his get-out-of-jail-free spell and risk getting killed for the CDG? You need to make absolutely sure that you're not metagaming this portion of it, just because you know in retrospect that the PCs weren't immediately chasing him. If 2-4 rounds were all that it would take to catch, IMO, no way would someone lose their one and only ethereal jaunt just for a little revenge (crazy or not, he is still smart).

This is also the one thing that stuck out the most for me. Everything else clearly seemed like you were using your best judgment. I'm betting the inability to intervene is what rubbed people the wrong way.

 

[azhrei_fje]

And to my mind it shouldn't matter. You said to yourself, "I'm going to kill this captured PC SIMPLY BECAUSE I CAN. They can't make it down one floor in time. They can't (and don't)anticipate that this is what the BBEG will actually do. Therefore I am JUSTIFIED in killing the PC without allowing the other players ANY POSSIBLE RECOURSE TO STOP ME."

We responded in parallel, so you haven't seen my last post. The BBEG saw two unconscious characters on the ground. One was a bound party member and the other was an unbound traitor (an ex-cult member). There was plenty of motivation for the BBEG to want to take out the traitor; the party member being there was just an extra benefit. And these actions took place while the PARTY WAS STILL IN COMBAT ROUNDS. It was after these actions that I asked. This is somewhat in keeping with my typical M.O. in that I will sometimes let combat go another round or two when an encounter appears to be over. I've only done that purposefully twice that I can think of, but it has happened more times than that.

I do NOT kill PCs. I set the stage and the motivations of the PCs and the BBEG's dictate their actions. Many moons ago I had a bad guy go down who was healed up by a companion. Ever since then, when the party drops someone they will often consider taking one additional attack to make sure that the individual is below -10 hit points!! So guess what happens when one of the bad guys knocks down a PC and then hacks on them once more? Yep, you got it.

I believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, as long as the neither one is getting special dispensation. As long as all rules are followed, the PCs are free to follow their motivations. But a BBEG who sees a traitor lying on the ground is going to have motivations too, and the players need to realize that.

Ironically, the player of one of the clerics told me after the battle that she had considered staying at the base of the stairs with the two unconscious ones as guard.

Having rules that favor the PC's/players in one place doesn't mean you get permission to screw them somewhere else with house rules or in-game rulings. You're certainly not doing that intentionally, but that IS the justification you seem to be using.

I'm not using them as justification. I'm merely pointing out that the module is very deadly and I recognize that and I want the PCs to survive. So I am willing to bend some rules in their favor should something catastrophic occur.

Whether those house rules are there or not, the combat actions taken by the BBEG are perfectly in keeping with her personality as I've created it. She had healed up her companion once during the combat, but when he went down again, she thought to herself, "screw this!" and decided to leave when she had the chance in order regroup and return.

 

[azhrei_fje]

This is also the one thing that stuck out the most for me. Everything else clearly seemed like you were using your best judgment. I'm betting the inability to intervene is what rubbed people the wrong way.

I was avoiding getting into too much detail as there may be players here that are going through this module.

But suffice to say that the ethereal jaunt wasn't needed to escape per se, but only to get around the blade barrier and the forcecage that were blocking her exit. Once she got to another level of the tower, it was easy for her to get all the way to the second floor and rather quickly. However, the players didn't know this. One of them obviously felt that it would have been out of character to dismiss the EJ spell. (How can a player know what is out of character for a BBEG that they've only heard about? Oh, and they saw a couple of dead female humans staked out on the BBEG's bed, bodies wrapped in the black silk sheets and pretty badly mutilated. This is all they know about the BBEG.)

I guess my problem is a player who assumes that the BBEGs motivations must be the same as theirs. This BBEG still had 36 hp (out of 140+ or so), so leaving at the point she did was not due to low hit points on her part -- it was because she no longer had a minion in the room to help take some damage and she felt it was wiser to flee than to stick around. (She had already heal'd his butt once and she wasn't going to do it again!)

 

[UltimaGabe]

Some people said that reaching through should still provide a Reflex save. I was thinking that the blades are constantly spinning around, like a fan blade, so putting your hand in shouldn't get a Reflex save. Just like putting your hand on a hot stove wouldn't get a Reflex save -- it's not a reflexive action to pull your hand out. You purposefully put it in there, for heaven's sake! But I'll make a note to allow a Reflex save in the future.

Let's check the SRD:

An immobile, vertical curtain of whirling blades shaped of pure force springs into existence. Any creature passing through the wall takes 1d6 points of damage per caster level (maximum 15d6), with a Reflex save for half damage.

If you evoke the barrier so that it appears where creatures are, each creature takes damage as if passing through the wall. Each such creature can avoid the wall (ending up on the side of its choice) and thus take no damage by making a successful Reflex save.

Emphasis mine. A creature passing through the wall takes damage, with a Reflex save for half. If a person sees an enemy on the other side, and willingly jumps through the wall, he gets a save for half damage. But then, if a person sticks just an arm through to touch someone, you'd rule that they automatically take FULL damage? If anything, he should take LESS damage because he's sticking much less of his body through the barrier, and it's probably a lot easier to time a quick jab through a wall of blades than it is to time your whole body through. Both the person sticking their arm and the person jumping through are willingly putting themselves through the wall- but they're still doing so in such a way as to minimize the damage. Personally, I would give him a save for no damage, but he'd at LEAST follow the same rules as someone walking through.

That aside, I think you ruled everything else just as you should have. PCs always gripe when their players get killed, and yet they still continuously put themselves in situations where they could die. I don't get it. The BBEG was, backed by the rules, fully able to do what he/she did, and I think you played everything out fine. As long as Raise Dead and Resurrection are options, you don't need to worry about players upset at PC deaths. If death was such a terrible, terrible thing, those spells wouldn't exist.

 

[Zelc]

I honestly don't know why people keep saying making a touch attack through the Blade Barrier should subject the character to the damage. The logical implication is attacking with a weapon through the wall subjects the weapon to the damage. This interpretation makes the spell extremely powerful because rather than simply providing cover, it could very well block all weapon attacks by sundering the weapons. It'd be like adding a Wind Wall effect that also blocks melee weapons to the spell. Reaching through the wall is not the same as passing through the wall, and I cannot see how the designers would intend for the wall to sunder weapons.

 

[roguerouge]

When in doubt, remind players that if they get these rulings, so do their opponents. That tends to make players more invested in fair play.

1B. OF COURSE you take damage when you stick your hand into a magical blender! It makes no sense whatsoever to let someone do that without consequence.

1C. You don't get free standard actions as a result of your opponent casting a spell.

2. DC 0 gets you "over there somewhere;" DC +20 gets you the particular square.

3. Yes, a PC needs to be able to hear or see a spellcaster in order to use Spellcraft to identify a spell. There are feats that depend on that fact. You don't take a penalty to that check when the spell has only V or S components, so if the opponent cast a spell without V components behind a force wall, it makes no difference to the check. I can see imposing a -5 penalty if the spell had a V component that couldn't be heard, however.

5. You should never ask if the players want to stay in round-by-round mode when the opponent is going to do things like this. You mislead them by giving them that option when only you knew the consequences of their choices. I would recommend a "rewind" here. The optimum thing would have been for them to get there as the BBEG was killing the trussed up character or just afterwards.

 

[Animal]

you guys shouldn't be mobbing OP like that. he didn't ask how he should run his campaign and play his baddies. he asked if he should have forced PCs to stay in combat mode. my answer is NO. never force players to do anything even if its for their own good. the most you can provide is a slight hint.
as for the little flame that occured here - i think you did everything right as a DM. the BBEG's logic was perfect - do as much damage to the party as he could and vanish. i mean, can you blame a chaotic evil person that he killed his bitter enemy? and the party? what were they thinking, why were they lingering? they failed their friend and THEY are responsible for his death.
i know that there are gamers that are so used to computer rpg's that they think the game is only about leveling, hoarding items and power and killing tougher monsters. they just don't understand that game is much more interesting when you don't use save/load buttons all the time. that is the best part of board rpg - you know that if you make a mistake, take an unnecessary risk or your foe outsmarts you, your character might well die for good so you have to mobilize all your brainpower to win (or to be wise enough to retreat). only when you know that your character may actually DIE you start roleplaying realistically.

 

[MithrasRahl]

Whatever your reasons, and I do respectfully disagree with them, killing a PC in the way you did just seems spiteful. This isn't real life or realistic, so there is no need to insist on auto-killing a PC. If you want realism, get the BBEG to teleport to them while they're sleeping, invisble, cast disintegrate on the sentry, and then CdG the whole party. You win.

If you want to punish them for whatever reason, have the BBEG cast some sort of spell on the unconscious PC. Your choice on what it is, but something that will either take him over later on, make him turn into a zombie, whatever. Whatever you choose, it allows the PCs a chance to save the character, and at the same time adds a level of paranoia to the adventure.

Option 1: BBEG CdGs unconcious character who was left alone. Character dies.

Option 2: BBEG casts Trap the Soul on the PC and takes it along as he flees. The Character has now been removed from the party, and allows for an interesting sidequest to save the PC (if the party so chooses). As an added bonus, you could have a time constraint, a "you can go on this sidequest to save the PC, but it'll take around this long, and while you're doing that, the BBEG will have time to do 'X'"

 

[azhrei_fje]

A creature passing through the wall takes damage, with a Reflex save for half. If a person sees an enemy on the other side, and willingly jumps through the wall, he gets a save for half damage. But then, if a person sticks just an arm through to touch someone, you'd rule that they automatically take FULL damage?

I have decided that I agree completely with this approach. Someone with reach who sticks their arm through but not their body, can make a Reflex save. I'm going to say it's half damage, none if saved. And I would allow the use of evasion and similar feats, of course. I'm reducing the damage because the spell description says "moves through" and the body of the creature is not moving through the barrier in this case.

Looking at it from the players viewpoint, they could use blade barrier to tactically divide the battlefield and they would want this type of ruling and it's consistent with the spell description