Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
Why didn't they retreat when it was obvious that they couldn't win? Why would a wisdom check let them know they "could" beat a serious daemon? Sounds like a brainfart on your players part.
A momentary lapse of good DM judgement killed all my players.
- Thread starter SpuneDagr
- Start date
Savage Wombat
Hero
Yes, that was an excellent recovery.
I disagree with the assessment of "they should have known better" - look at the picture in the book. An ultraloth simply doesn't LOOK that dangerous. No "teeth with bits of flesh" or anything. It's a weird looking humanoid. (Of course, so is an illithid.)
If it had been Ravenloft, where PCs are required to tread cautiously around the unknown - I'd say leave them all dead. Or worse.
I disagree with the assessment of "they should have known better" - look at the picture in the book. An ultraloth simply doesn't LOOK that dangerous. No "teeth with bits of flesh" or anything. It's a weird looking humanoid. (Of course, so is an illithid.)
If it had been Ravenloft, where PCs are required to tread cautiously around the unknown - I'd say leave them all dead. Or worse.
Darth Shoju
First Post
Well first off I'd say you made a really nice save there. I think allowing a check is reasonable.
"See a colorful frog - what tells you it's poisonous to the touch?"-arcady
It's the colour that says it's poisonous. That's why most of those poisionous frogs are so vividly coloured AFAIK. It doesn't do them much good to be poisonous if they still get chewed up and spit out, even if the animal trying to eat them dies. They want to have some glaring indication that "hey, you try to eat me, you're gonna die.". From my understanding, after millions of years of evolution they've developed their bright colouration as a warning of their poisonous nature and the animals in their ecosystem have evolved to understand what those bright colours mean. Now, if an animal not native to that ecosystem was introduced they'd probably try to eat that little froggy and would die painfully as a result. Now as far as people go, I'm with arcady. You can never tell how dangerous a person is just by looking at him. Sure, some people are large and muscular, and you can probably guess that it would be a good idea NOT to fight them, but you can never be sure if you see that person fighting someone smaller than them who will win. People are much more deceptive than animals IMO.
So I'm thinking thusly; since your party was up against an Ultraloth, I'd have given them a Knowledge: the Planes check to figure out what it was and if it could wipe them out. For this I'd set the DC to know exactly what it was up around 15 or so, and the knowledge to know it was dangerous (without knowing exactly what species it was) at around 5 or so. For a Wisdom check I'd set the DC to around 10, with success saying "It would be suicide to attack this creature." and failure saying "You're not sure, but you don't think attacking it would be a good idea." . If it was a more natural creature, like say a poisonous frog, I'd have it be a Survival check or Knowledge: Nature check to say "Hey, don't lick this frog." . Now if we're talking about assessing the danger level of a humanoid (from the Prime Material) I'd set it as a high DC Sense Motive, althought I wouldn't let it give too much information, perhaps just a sense that the individual is menacing or dangerous.
But frankly I don't think you did anything terribly wrong, the party was a bit foolhardy in that situation. In the end you came up with a nice and colourful save. Good work.
edited for grammar issues
"See a colorful frog - what tells you it's poisonous to the touch?"-arcady
It's the colour that says it's poisonous. That's why most of those poisionous frogs are so vividly coloured AFAIK. It doesn't do them much good to be poisonous if they still get chewed up and spit out, even if the animal trying to eat them dies. They want to have some glaring indication that "hey, you try to eat me, you're gonna die.". From my understanding, after millions of years of evolution they've developed their bright colouration as a warning of their poisonous nature and the animals in their ecosystem have evolved to understand what those bright colours mean. Now, if an animal not native to that ecosystem was introduced they'd probably try to eat that little froggy and would die painfully as a result. Now as far as people go, I'm with arcady. You can never tell how dangerous a person is just by looking at him. Sure, some people are large and muscular, and you can probably guess that it would be a good idea NOT to fight them, but you can never be sure if you see that person fighting someone smaller than them who will win. People are much more deceptive than animals IMO.
So I'm thinking thusly; since your party was up against an Ultraloth, I'd have given them a Knowledge: the Planes check to figure out what it was and if it could wipe them out. For this I'd set the DC to know exactly what it was up around 15 or so, and the knowledge to know it was dangerous (without knowing exactly what species it was) at around 5 or so. For a Wisdom check I'd set the DC to around 10, with success saying "It would be suicide to attack this creature." and failure saying "You're not sure, but you don't think attacking it would be a good idea." . If it was a more natural creature, like say a poisonous frog, I'd have it be a Survival check or Knowledge: Nature check to say "Hey, don't lick this frog." . Now if we're talking about assessing the danger level of a humanoid (from the Prime Material) I'd set it as a high DC Sense Motive, althought I wouldn't let it give too much information, perhaps just a sense that the individual is menacing or dangerous.
But frankly I don't think you did anything terribly wrong, the party was a bit foolhardy in that situation. In the end you came up with a nice and colourful save. Good work.
edited for grammar issues
Last edited:
Psion
Adventurer
SpuneDagr said:
Heh.
I remember a few (okay, like 8) years back, we were playing Traveller, and the players were playing marines doing an orbital insertion and all failed their rolls and died.
At the time, I stuck with the decision, and thought myself a good GM for sticking by my guns and letting the dice fall where they may.
Looking back, that probably wasn't too clever. I still have a "let the dice fall where they may" philosophy, but it occurred to me that, while this is a good philosophy, there is a vital philosophy that goes with it:
Don't put something in your adventure that has the possibility of killing the PCs unless you really want there to be a possibility to kill the PCs at that point.
Seems rather simple now, but in a way it is rather profound. I find it silly now that some people "fudge dice rolls" to save PCs -- if they didn't want the PCs to die at that point, why did they put the lethal encounter in in the first place?
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Re: Re: A momentary lapse of good DM judgement killed all my players.
Because the alternative is to err on the side of caution, which can lead to unexciting combats. I'm a committed fudger. I try to gauge the power of enemies such that a fight will be tough but not result in character death,most of the time. If I misjudge and make an opponent too weak, I'm fine with bumping up some invisible aspect of the opponent (hit points, saves, fast healing, powers, etc.) Similarly, if I make an opponent too strong, I'm fine with nerfing it on the fly.
As I said, I wish I were always able to gauge my encounters correctly. But since I can't, I have three choices:
1) Err on the side of caution, and risk a night of boring gaming;
2) Err on the side of tension, and risk killing off characters; or
3) Do the best I can do, and be willing to fudge occasionally.
Combat is actually a lesser part of my game, which may be why I'm so willing to fudge: in the last three sessions, we've only had one and a half combats.
Daniel
Psion said:
Because the alternative is to err on the side of caution, which can lead to unexciting combats. I'm a committed fudger. I try to gauge the power of enemies such that a fight will be tough but not result in character death,most of the time. If I misjudge and make an opponent too weak, I'm fine with bumping up some invisible aspect of the opponent (hit points, saves, fast healing, powers, etc.) Similarly, if I make an opponent too strong, I'm fine with nerfing it on the fly.
As I said, I wish I were always able to gauge my encounters correctly. But since I can't, I have three choices:
1) Err on the side of caution, and risk a night of boring gaming;
2) Err on the side of tension, and risk killing off characters; or
3) Do the best I can do, and be willing to fudge occasionally.
Combat is actually a lesser part of my game, which may be why I'm so willing to fudge: in the last three sessions, we've only had one and a half combats.
Daniel
Kastil
Explorer
Re: Re: A momentary lapse of good DM judgement killed all my players.
I personally like to put encounters here and there (too too frequently mind you) that are a little beyond the party so they learn there are other ways to get past something besides killing it. Avoiding an encounter, in my game anyways, can also gain you xps. After all, the players *hopefully* learn from the EXPerience.
Psion said:
I personally like to put encounters here and there (too too frequently mind you) that are a little beyond the party so they learn there are other ways to get past something besides killing it. Avoiding an encounter, in my game anyways, can also gain you xps. After all, the players *hopefully* learn from the EXPerience.
Psion
Adventurer
Oh sure, that's great... if that is what you WANT to do. But do you pull your punches when they cross that line and do something they shouldn't? I wouldn't, because to do so would be to teach them that regardless of how tough a challenge sounds, they can handle it, because the GM will pull the punches he needs to pull in order for them to handle it.
SpuneDagr
Explorer
Before the campaign started, I told them all that I would not be tailoring encounters to their level. If they're up against something they can't handle, they should run away. However, they had managed to defeat every creature I put against them through the power of sheer, stuborn tenacity.
That said, as soon as the character attacked, the 'loth blasphemed like a mofo and everyone except the wizard (he's an Athar - immune to that spell) was instantly paralyzed. The 'loth then started hacking the upstart fool into little bits. The wizard tried his darndest to save everybody else by distracting the 'loth with a summon monster. That tweaked him off, so he firestormed the lot of 'em, dropping every person to -20 hp.
I have no problem drop-kicking their egos with a death here and there, but I don't want a TPK because I made a spur-of-the-moment decision that a Wisdom check DC 10 was moronic. I should have either told him that he couldn't tell, or that there was no way in the Nine Hells he could even try to kill the guy.
Save and Reload.
That said, as soon as the character attacked, the 'loth blasphemed like a mofo and everyone except the wizard (he's an Athar - immune to that spell) was instantly paralyzed. The 'loth then started hacking the upstart fool into little bits. The wizard tried his darndest to save everybody else by distracting the 'loth with a summon monster. That tweaked him off, so he firestormed the lot of 'em, dropping every person to -20 hp.
I have no problem drop-kicking their egos with a death here and there, but I don't want a TPK because I made a spur-of-the-moment decision that a Wisdom check DC 10 was moronic. I should have either told him that he couldn't tell, or that there was no way in the Nine Hells he could even try to kill the guy.
Save and Reload.
Last edited:
EarthsShadow
First Post
Good save on the whole hypnotic thing, that's something I will have to remember.
On the otherside of the coin, you have to remember that most players in most groups go into a game with the assumption that the DM won't through something at the party that will kill them in this manner, and if it does most players are pissy and take things the wrong way when it does happen. It's a metagame concept that's been pass down among the gaming generations and its a bad metagame concept to deal with.
It's just as bad as the player that goes to sleep with a barmaid to wake up and find all his stuff stolen. Some players will take it stride, and some players will think the DM is out to get them, and think that its unfair that his character should have his stuff stolen because he's a player and his character is a player character. Metagame thinking and it happens all the time.
I bet your players forgot what you said and figured that you wouldn't throw something at them that they couldn't kill. Despite your warnings, everything else they fought they killed without dying, and then they assumed the same thing in this instance. They were wrong, some might have been a little pisssed, and they blame the DM (you) instead of taking the blame themselves for their actions.
On the otherside of the coin, you have to remember that most players in most groups go into a game with the assumption that the DM won't through something at the party that will kill them in this manner, and if it does most players are pissy and take things the wrong way when it does happen. It's a metagame concept that's been pass down among the gaming generations and its a bad metagame concept to deal with.
It's just as bad as the player that goes to sleep with a barmaid to wake up and find all his stuff stolen. Some players will take it stride, and some players will think the DM is out to get them, and think that its unfair that his character should have his stuff stolen because he's a player and his character is a player character. Metagame thinking and it happens all the time.
I bet your players forgot what you said and figured that you wouldn't throw something at them that they couldn't kill. Despite your warnings, everything else they fought they killed without dying, and then they assumed the same thing in this instance. They were wrong, some might have been a little pisssed, and they blame the DM (you) instead of taking the blame themselves for their actions.
Similar Threads
