Kahuna Burger said:
think you're missing the point of their plan.
Not at all. I understand the point, but find it to be fatally flawed.
We don't know the mechanism for returning the lich to animiate form. As shown previously, if an outside agency is not required, KenM's plan is of little value. Let us now assume an outside agency is required. Moving the thing off plane does nothing to alleviate the risk.
If the statue was created a long time ago, we have empirical evidence that random passersby are not a notable threat, since the thing has been a statue for a long time. If the statue were created recently, the threat from random passersby is far less than the threat from a friend or servant of the lich, or someone who knows about the breastplate and seeks it. Either way, the credible risk comes from someone who is actively looking for the thing.
Let us assume it takes at least Stone to Flesh (or possibly greater mojo) to unpetrify the lich. Stone to Flesh, Contact Other Plane, and Plane Shift are all within a spell level of each other - meaning that an entity with the power to unpetrify the lich also likely has the power to find and reach the statue. Thus, merely moving it off plane is about as useful as burying it, or tossing a tablecloth over it. It doesn't stop the credible threats from finding and reanimating the thing.
[edit: Okay, maybe it requires the gemstones. Same logic applies. The party can plane hop, so anyone who can beat the party can probbly manage the trick. Moving the thing off plane makes it about as safe as simply walking away with the gems in your pockets.]
All of that, though, is rather besides the point. It shows the players weren't being particularly bright. The DM wasn't being particularly bright in only prepping for the case where the players are smart. So far, nobody is doing really well here
PS, being blunt alone doesn't give your interpretation more weight than that of the person who actually expereinced it. And him "not liking it" also doen't make you right. So why not just phrase it as a different possible interpretation instead of trying to explain the 'truth' of a game interaction between people you never met?
I don't claim that being blunt gives my thoughts more weight, or makes it more right. It was merely expedient (finesse takes more time than bluntness), and more likely to be noticed and considered in amongst the majority.
It is very easy, and common, to point a finger and say, "this person is to blame". But D&D is a game of
cooperative storytelling. Part of the point of cooperation is for some to pick up the burden when another falters. If KenM had referenced this as a pattern of behavior ("My DM always does this type of thing!"), that would indicate a systematic failure to cooperate with his players, which is bad. However, as an isolated incident, it sounds more like a failure of cooperation on both sides.
DMs are human beings, and each has strengths and weaknesses. Few are capable of coming up with good interesting adventure material off the tops of their heads. Most depend on preparation - meaning that at the table their options may be limited. This is usually mitigated by prepping up to cover what seems to be the most likely scenarios. At those times, the DM hopes that the players will cooperate.
So - a habit of railroading is bad. But in a particular instance expecting the players to grab at the hook presented, and being caught unprepared when they don't, is merely human. The DM here wasn't fully prepared and didn't handle it well. But the players seem to have failed to see that sometimes they need to be ready and willing to go with what the DM has set up for them. Mistakes on both sides, I think.
