Armour Dilemma: Am I Wrong Here?

[Thels]

Yeah, though you shouldn't overuse it, at-night surprises happen, be ready for them. Also, if you count donning armor time (which you should), keep good track of the time spellcasters spend on their spell memorization as well.

There's other ways to handle armor problems... By level 10-12, they could easily afford a 2nd armor besides their bulky armor they can't sleep in. You can get proper sleep in any armor with up to -4 on ACP. That includes all but Chainmail and Heavy Armors. So just have a breastplate around for backup purposes such as this (my characters usually prefer Chain shirt as a backup armor, only 1 less than the Breastplate, but hey, it's light armor!). Actually, i consider the -5 pretty high... I'd rather see -2 or -3.

If you don't have the means to carry a 2nd armor around, then resort to other ideas. Clerics can keep a Magic Vestment memorized for cases like this. Fighters and Paladins oughta talk to some of the spellcasters in the party. If the rest expects them to do frontline work, they better provide them with some cover (Mage Armor, Magic Vestment, Barkskin). If they refuse, then next time just don't step in to the frontline and they'll probably reconsider.

Then again, they're not required to participate in every action. One time in my party, we were in some dark forest. Most of the party decided to start travelling right at dawn, so we could get out of there ASAP. Druid thought otherwise and started memorizing spells. The rest of the party got frustrated of him, but most didn't want to leave him behind. After a little while we heard something coming our direction, mowing trees down as it approached. That was enough for me, and I decided to go, telling the others to come with me. The others tried to convince the druid to come, who didn't and so they stayed, while I left. It ended up with me (1 of the 2 frontfighters) not being in the encounter and the other frontfighter dying in the encounter. So, I missed the encounter in favor of letting my character live. My choice, and I certainly did not blame the DM for that (The druid told the DM that my LG alignment needed revision, but that was an entirely different matter. Something my DM did not go in on btw).

Seems like your player just has some growing up to do.

 

[hong]

And as interesting as the quote is, D&D ain't all about the gear. the gear's a big part, but true character is defined by whether or not you take the plunge without all your best powers active, and the odds are stacked against you.

As a DM, I don't think basing the climax to a campaign on the assumption that the players share this point of view, is particularly wise. Unless I was damn sure that the players were also of like mind, so I wouldn't get blindsided. As it appears fusangite was.


Hong "risk averse" Ooi

 

[Mouseferatu]

I have to agree with the majority here. So long as this tactic isn't overused, there's nothing wrong with it.

Characters should occasionally have to deal with challenges when they aren't at peak capacity. It keeps the game interesting. It doesn't matter how much magic a character has tied up in his plate mail, they're not going to be "useless" without it. Besides, you wouldn't hesitate (I assume) to throw a fight at a party when the spellcasters were low on spells from a day of hard adventuring. Presumably you don't always give them time to heal 100% between battles. This is no different; you're hitting them when they're not at full strength, but far from helpless.

And regardless of anything else, that sort of reaction from a player is inappropriate. I wouldn't kick him out automatically, but I would take him aside and tell him, in no uncertain terms, that one more outburst like that means he's gone.

 

[Endur]

heavy armor time

I think the real issue is time.

It takes several minutes to suit up in armor and the average combat is over in seconds.

Until the first wave of heroes tells the second wave of heroes, the second wave really doesn't know what is going on, because the second wave is busy getting suited up for battle.

So, the first wave of heroes was wrong not to call for help. As soon as they realized there was a combat, they should have asked for immediate assistance. The first wave didn't ask for help, so they failed.

The GM also failed. An NPC lackey should have ran into the heroes room and told them that there was a battle, and there was no time to get dressed in armor.

Finally, I'm shocked that with 11th -12th level characters, nobody had a limited wish or other spell to gather the party in one place.

I understand that you didn't realize the players wouldn't leap to the conclusion that they didn't have time to get themselves dressed. But once you realized that, you should have used a NPC to spark the players.

"Never Split the Party." Its a good rule for players, and a must rule for GMs. For RPing, its sometimes ok to split players; but once action begins, you need to give everyone a turn. If necessary, have absent PCs run your NPCs for you, but make sure everyone feels involved in the game.

I wouldn't blame the player who complained. He was right to complain. Anytime one or more players spend the whole game doing nothing, they have a right to complain.

Tom

 

[hong]

I want to see the player's side of the story, myself. A campaign usually doesn't go boom like this out of nowhere.

 

[Thels]

Huh, you're saying that it wasn't their fault that they didn't knew to rush out right away. Somehow the characters expected that they would be needing their armor without knowing what's going on. That's where the players started mistaking in the 1st place. When an alarm goes off, you're not gonna spend 4 minutes getting dressed! If no alarm goes off, then what were they thinking putting their battle armor on?

Of course the DM gives us the story from only one view, but from what I make of it is that the players were quite aware what was going on, and I assume they know how to calculate that 4 minutes means 40 rounds. They KNOW that if they let the others go first, the others will be seeing at least something for 40 rounds before they do. 10-12 level characters should have experience enough to know that most encounters are by that time long done.

Never split the party is a guideline, not a rule. A clever DM would either give both groups about the same to do, or somehow manage to get the group back together, but in this case the party chose for it themselves. The heavy armor dudes decided upon donning their armor, and the rest decided not to wait for that.

 

[Dreeble]

Misc

Heya:

Being abusive is bad, of course.

That said, how kewl was their armor? If one of the heavy armor wearers had Full Plate of Vampire Immunity then, yeah, I can see how he'd want to suit up.

Also, what about alignments and personalities? If some of the players are relatively mercenary (or have Neutral or Chaotic aspects) then, yeah, I can see taking them time, stopping off for a bagel or two, and so on, before proceeding to the encounter.

Also also, for non-climactic encounters I, personally, wouldn't mind having restrictions on abilities here or there. For _climactic_ encounters, um, I wanna play my character, okay? Not my character without spells, not my character without items, but my character. In the climactic encounter, that is.

Still, being abusive is bad.

Take care,
Dreeble

 

[Thels]

What is being abusive? I would call it abusive if the party would only be attacked during nighttimes, or always ended up in a nomagic zone, or stuff like that.

Occasional nightstrikes occur, it's part of the game!

 

[D'karr]

...
Never split the party is a guideline, not a rule. A clever DM would either give both groups about the same to do, or somehow manage to get the group back together, but in this case the party chose for it themselves. The heavy armor dudes decided upon donning their armor, and the rest decided not to wait for that.

A very good guideline mind you...

3 players decided to stay and don armor, doesn't that make you a little suspicious of what was going through their minds?

I have a group of 8 players. I'm not sure how big Fusangite's group is. But if a full third of my group decided on a course of action that seemed inapproprate to me I would question if I was not providing them with the appropriate information or enough information for them to make the same decision I would make.

I'm not saying he was wrong in using this encounter. But there is something fishy in suburbia with this situation. Given the same information he has given here I would have also stayed and donned armor.

So was the encounter appropriate? I don't know. But one of the players chose to go get the Duke instead of the other players. Something that would in my mind take more than 4 minutes.

I think the whole situation is off. It sounds good to give the players the moral dilemma but keeping them out of the whole encounter because of their choice (which I mentioned already does not seem like a choice at all) seems inappropriate.

 

[D'karr]

What is being abusive? I would call it abusive if the party would only be attacked during nighttimes, or always ended up in a nomagic zone, or stuff like that.

Occasional nightstrikes occur, it's part of the game!

I believe he is talking about the player's verbal abuse not about the encounter parameters.