SnowleopardVK
First Post
I don't know if my players would have run because after fighting monks they would kind of guess that the boss monk would be able to come after them and pick off the slowest members.
What makes them think that the boss monk would just let them run?
She likely wouldn't have let them get away entirely, but running just far enough back to claim a chokepoint (like the doorway that was one move action away from them) would allow them the clear advantage of having their melee fighter in the door with the casters behind him so that the casters couldn't all get picked off first. There were better tactics they could have gone with than a head-on attack when they were weakened.
SnowleopardVK, you say they are sore losers and they need to suck it up. What is their opinion if what happened? Do you know it?
That's a bit harsh... I didn't use the words "suck it up" at any point, I just feel that they took the loss worse than they should have. Anyways, from their conversation afterwards (what I've heard since posting this topic) they seem to have decided this result was their fault and that they made poor decisions in an encounter that they should have been able to handle. They're still mad at me, though apparently they don't believe I gave them an unfair encounter.
I can only assume from that that they had assumed TPKs don't happen. I thought I'd made it clear to them that I have had TPKs in the past with my other group, but perhaps they assumed that I'd treat their group differently. Not sure.
That's pretty egregious in some social contracts. Even in groups that won't nerf the battle when it's going against the PCs, escalating the battle when the party is barely winning as it is is pretty bad, even if it's written down in the adventure.
True. I usually trust these modules to be fairly well done, because they usually are, and following things as-written generally leads to fun encounters and situations. This was an exception, and unfortunately not one that I anticipated ahead of time or caught in my playtesting. So yes, I probably could have done better by not running the encounter as written, but I also think the bad reactions of the players was an issue.
You know this whine DMs have of player entitlement is getting old. DMs are not gods they make mistakes. Personally I don't care how a module is written a DM needs to be able to adjust it on the fly.
Yup. Expanding on that, and continuing on what I said above, I'd say it's also important for a DM to be able to recognize when a module needs adjusting at all, which is something I apparently need to work on a bit.
I'm not sure why it would be unwise for them to target enemies with special powers or are in charge. It's a good way to force a moral check on your enemies, and if they aren't attacking right away, it's a good way to drop them before they get a hit. If you know that an entire group is going to attack you, I don't think who is currently choosing not to attack you really factors in to who to attack.
In many situations it is a very good idea, hence why they often do it. In this situation I knew it would go badly for them though, which is why I tried to avoid a situation where they could try it.
Also, in the "the whole group is going to attack you "situation it does make a slight difference who isn't attacking. Fighting enemies one at a time, or in waves is easier in most cases than fighting the same number of enemies all at once. Provoking those who aren't attacking into joining the fight makes the fight slightly harder than it would be if they join after you defeat the others.
Last edited: