Having read the discussion I agree in general with the sentiment that communication is key, and that if people feel powerless you should maybe slow-down out of game and remind them of their options - and certainly provide some relief so the game has ups as well as downs. This doesn't mean you should excuse the party from all negatives, rather the opposite (and I'm not sure I would allow raise dead so easily, you risk turning it into a "video game", where the players don't care about their characters since it can be repaired anyhow.) But it does mean that if the players are often stretched, they should sometimes be vindicated bigtime - a realistic but terrible mistake on the part of the BBEG, which can be jumped on by the PC's, that kind of thing. Ideally, the BBEG is not really less prone to mistakes than the PC's. Any such differences indicate that the BBEG is more aware of his surroundings, which might just be because he's being played by the person who defines the surroundings.
Specifically though:
azhrei_fje said:
1A. Blade barrier along a grid line or through a grid square?
My vote is that either is fine and it's up to you, but the difference should not be relevant - the grid is just an ingame abstraction, and not a "real" thing in-game. Someone suggested that the barrier redefines the grid, and that's probably too much work, but an interesting concept. I'd wing it, allowing it both to be 0 ft wide for movement/reach purposes, and to be in a square for initial purposes (since that only makes sense).
1B. Reaching through a blade barrier automatically inflicts damage. True or False.
Attacks through a blade barrier merely have cover. If a character wishes to touch something on the other side, require a touch attack. If a character wishes to grasp something and retrieve it, use common sense and (hefty) circumstance modifiers. A character might trigger a lever through a blade barrier with only limited touch-attack penalties (i.e. almost always succeeding), but fail to pick up a sword on the other side. A tumble check or something similar might be a good idea for difficult tasks, also since it makes players less liable to complain when they fail. You can point out that it's a difficult tumble/dex check to pick up the heavy greatsword, but that they can opt to risk damage instead of failure to pick up the item (i.e. take the reflex save as if for movement instead of risking failure). This way, you place the burden of the consequences on the player, always a good idea.
1C. Making the Reflex save requires the creature to move only into an unoccupied square (true or false). Or they can squeeze into an ally's square (true or false). Or they can bull rush an opponent and take their square (true or false).
True - but a bit of limited common sense won't kill you here. Sure, allow a bull rush, but make sure you amply describe what a rush job it is, and impose a heft penalty, and if the bull rush fails... the creature falls prone in the blade barrier, not a good idea.
I mean, imagine an ancient dragon swerving aside from an aerial blade barrier - could it push away a gull? If so, where's the line? I'd say, don't bother defining the line, just make a d20 check using the "impossible is just a +20 modifier" thought (not to be taken too seriously...). Maybe a -10 penalty is OK. If you're worried about abuse, make it -20, and have the movement count against next turns movement. You're not going to break the game so long as you make sure disadvantageous situations are... disadvantageous - so that means,
don't allow a bull rush that's not seriously nerfed.
2. A blinded creature must make a Listen check to pinpoint an opponent. The DC is 0? 20? Other?
That's situational, but a DC 20 base sounds like a good starting point. Feel free to modify with circumstance modifiers, like, a +5 for being distracted, and maybe modifiers depending on the creature and it's activities.
3. Does
wall of force block sound and/or vision? (It's invisible, so it seems unlikely to block vision.
)
A wall of force does not block vision and by extension, does not block purely visual effects. It's not specified whether it blocks sounds, so that's campaign dependent. You could imagine a star-trek like forcefield which is completely permeable to sound, or you could imagine a normal wall-like attenuation, all the way up to complete sound blocking. My feeling is that if the spell were intended to block sounds very strongly, it would say so, so a mild attenuation should be the most impact it has. Maybe it muffles sounds a little, but has no game mechanical impact, or just a small listen DC impact? I'd make it less attenuation than a normal wall, but, as long as you're consistent, you could perfectly well do otherwise. Be aware that complete sound blocking has a bunch of side-effects in some cases, so you might be causing ripple effects here. It's safer, balance-wise, not to speak in absolutes, but just to make it a listen DC modifier, at most.
4. How does control winds interact with the fog spells, specifically acid fog?
No idea, but a reasonable amount of control is believable. I would also not allow shaping, but maybe moving. You could make it a little random; roll a d10 to determine where it goes relative to where you want it to go (1-9 in a numpad like arrangement, 10 disperses). It's pretty cool to use wind to control effects, so you might allow that, but make it a real character choice then, a one-off which for instance requires exceptionally high ranks in profession(sailor) for good insight into wind and wind patterns along with ranks in knowledge(nature) and spellcraft perhaps. Ideally, if you allow it, but it goes beyond the spell description, choose a mechanic which is specific and odd enough that it's an exceptional unique thing, which can't be abused by any old creature, so that your game-world remains believable despite other casters not using such an advantageous technique, and so that your PC's don't break the balance to heavily.
5. Should I have forced the party to remain in "combat" mode?
No more than usual. Wait until they say what they do. Then remind them what they did. Make sure it's their choice. Perhaps allow a listen check to hear the gurgling of a cut throat right through the floor (insert gruesome description), so they connect the dots of the consequences of their actions.
I think you ruled pretty fine, and that any improvement you can make should more be on the communication aspect than the ruling aspect. Also, if your players truly don't like this kind of stuff, then try to reconsider your campaign design in such a way that you don't force em into these kind of situations rather than ruling them differently. It's definitely possible to tame a campaign a little, and that's often more believable than making PC-friendly rulings which might shatter suspension of disbelief. You can tame it down a little by letting them discover more hints of what's to come, and thus be better prepared. You can help them by granting them by giving em things like portable holes with bottles of air to transport incapacitated allies in. You can give em staff's of life. You can choose Lair styles which focus more on preventing entry than on inducing life threatening party-splits - so that if things do go hay-wire, they can retreat.
