As far as I am concerned, if players figure out a way to prevent an enemy from attacking them, they shouldn't be punished for it.
If a party's method of avoiding attacks leaves their ship inadequately protected, they should face the consequences of their actions. This isn't day care. You're old enough to be aware of what happens to ships caught in the tentacles of a sea monster.
In movies, what keeps that sort of thing from happening? Characters engage the sea monster. If they don't, it's nearly always all hands lost at sea. Now either you play action hero, or you live with the consequences.
DM: "Crap. You found the weakness in the module. Well, I can fix that. You're dead."
Please stop attacking the straw man; my argument is over here.
If you posted one or two players below decks, or running back and forth across the hold to fight, great! If they keep switching off with people above the deck, even better. That's a fine use of the terrain, that is. On the other hand, if you try to do this with your entire crew, the ship becomes the obvious target for the kraken.
If one round of hearing the sea monster (and possibly the sahuagin) tear into your ship doesn't clue your party into the danger they're facing, and they do nothing to counter this in the next round, congratulate them on a well-earned TPK.
This only works for 3.5 and earlier. It's an old signature that I just like to keep around. It doesn't work for 4E, so maybe it doesn't make sense in your 4E argument.
No? As a 3.5 argument, the readied action severely limited the options open to the one preparing it, while leaving the other party free to take other actions. Turning an enemy's blast into a single target attack with a 50% chance of not even having that target (assuming tentacles guarding both sets of stairs) sounds exactly like what you described for 3.5.
Maybe the Kraken was a joke as an encounter. It couldn't be slid or knocked prone or one attack blinds the entire Kraken, at least at our table. It should have been a single creature, but at our table, it was run as 4 different creatures which couldn't be affected by many things.
It's a bit like one of Dark Sun's silt horrors, only without a theoretically endless supply of minion tentacles. Playing those tentacles as monsters in an encounter that don't feature the silt horror itself has been on the book two and a half years now. It's nothing new. Both
Star Wars and
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea featured this sort of fight.
Just like WotC "broke the rules" by doing teleport damage and dropping the resistance of fire potions in LA 1, they "broke the rules" by creating a creature that really wasn't a creature and for the most part, could only be damaged.
I've already addressed the precedent for tentacles as separate monsters. Your claim that they could only be damaged is incorrect. You couldn't pull them onto the ship, and you couldn't blind them. That's it as far as limitations go.
As for "breaking the rules" in LA1, good! Where a primordial is concerned, the rules should break down. Both of the changes you described were consistent with what I'd expect from dealing with something like that, something that should have the player characters wetting their pants in terror. Something that can warp space between planes like that sounds just right. As for the reduction in fire immunity, you can already build something similar into PCs.
The designers could have accomplished the same result by having a random PC spontaneously combust every few rounds. That would also have been consistent with the terms of the scenario. Unfair, sure, but it's good to show some perspective about these things.
Interestingly enough, our table never got a description of the head of the creature, so how exactly did the creature see us above it and on deck if we couldn't see it?
You've read the mechanics for blindsight, a feature I'd expect to find in a creature from the depths of the ocean. The ability has always allowed its possessors to distinguish between enemies and allies.
As for the readied actions, WotC didn't tell DMs how to handle a pretty obvious situation, so all DMs will do it different.
Maybe so. We're not machines, and neither game designers nor players should expect us to act as such.
Your solution is no better than any other DM's solution. In fact, I consider your solution subpar because it's a DM entitled whiny solution.
I'm not here to hold players' hands. I'm here to challenge them.
Falling into the water was instant death, but the possibility of losing your ship in two to three rounds because you stubbornly clung to a single tactic is unfair? It's hard to take that argument seriously.
If your answer here is so obvious, why didn't WotC put the break checks or damage numbers in for DMs so that they wouldn't have to try to look it up?
Because an experienced DM, after reviewing the adventure, would either have looked them up or already had them memorized. There's a reason that getting the DM to consult the rulebooks was listed as a glory award this time.
This low standard you have for DMs makes me suspect the one you set for strong players.
Maybe it's because WotC didn't think to kill the players outright like you did.
Again, falling in the water was instant death. It's even written on your glory awards card.
Maybe your answer sucks, but you are unwilling to see that.
Not at all. Thirty years of experience with players tells me they'd try the exact same thing if they were the sahuagin. I notice you didn't address that point.
I'm perfectly willing to see that cowering in the hold was not the only method of holding your own on deck. I have agreed that access to the hold was a useful resource.
I have pointed out the flaw in your strategy when applied to the point of putting all your eggs in one basket, and you've all but called me a petty cheater for using the resources available. Why should I be impressed?
I think your answer sucks. It's death without dice rolls.
Oh, no. I'll happily roll the attacks and damage against the ship out in the open, just as I've done for attacks against the players. On average, it's enough to last two to three rounds. If I happen to roll nothing but ones on the first round of attacks, so be it.
In reality, I think the module's "fall in the water and die" rule is lame as well. It's save or die. After telling us for years how awful save or die is, WotC has to resort to it to challenge the players.
And in a campaign, they're right. In a campaign, I'd gladly settle for poking holes in the ship and having the sahuagin focus more on trying to find the Talon than on trying to kill those holding onto it. In a campaign, falling into the water would not mean instant death. In a campaign, I'd be happy to make a lot of changes, especially for players willing to take real chances, regardless of the odds.
At a Lair Assault table, however, I'm more than happy with save or die. I know players who continue to strive for that sort of thing against their opponents, so a little turnabout is a good thing. It's not that hard to avoid forced movement.
When characters in a movie or book fight a sea monster, those that get knocked into the water die. That's part of the fun of seeing a sea monster on the screen. I want to see that played for all it's worth in a one shot, because that's what a perilous adventure is all about.
I also consider the concept of Intimidating the BBEG into submission to be so stupid that it's nonsensical.
This also shows a remarkable lack of vision.
