Armour Dilemma: Am I Wrong Here?

[jdavis]

“No you’re missing my point.
4 minutes or 40 rounds isn’t a long time. 600 rounds is. Waiting 600 rounds is out of the question. Played out better they should have sent one person to see and had the others help the others with their armor and planned a little. That cuts it down to roughly 10 rounds that they were going to be waiting. IMHO the 4 that decided to fight an encounter planned out for 7 players should have got their butts handed to them.

So the players are wrong for not sending out one scout and the others helping with the armor (even though it was stated that there were servants to help with the armor). Well he did say he planned for that:

That would likely have happened if the whole group had decided to sit at home while the armoured characters put their armour on. That eventuality I had planned for, complete with different locations, available spells, etc. for the vampires. The group would have found the tower heavily fortified and well-defended with the guard pretty well wiped-out.

Of course then they would of let all the guards be killed, it sort of seems the whole point was to save the guards who were being slaughtered. But once again how is it the DMs fault the group decided to split up? This was not something he could change, it was the PCs decision to split up, four saw things one way three of them saw things another way. Which group should he of forced to change their actions?

It’s not ok to hose players out of playing period.

Even when some of them don't mind and the other walks away from the table?:

Of the other two who did not go to the battle, neither objected to what took place in the episode and one has expressed directly and specifically to me that he supports my position. He claims that the reason he did not attend the battle is because he decided it was finally someone else's turn to go into the front lines and take all the risks while he hung back, considering the party's usual strategy is to send him to the front lines and then, often, turn invisible and abandon him there.

Another thing which made the game problematic was that the player with whom I had the verbal altercation refused to sit with us around the gaming table until I told him his armour was on. He left the circle and went somewhere to read. Thus, there was no real opportunity to change the course of what his character was doing.

If the players make a choice to not play then what do you do? At that point he could only change the rules to give the angry player what he wanted, the player refused any other options but for him to get his armor on instantly.

The DM never should pose a set of choices that leads only to trusting that the DM will not put them up against something that they can’t handle Or Sit out as players as their characters get ready.

Well, I thought saying "it will take 40 rounds to don this armour. You can stop putting it on any time," 20 times would have been sufficient. I have to tell you, this thing hit me right out of left field. Similarly, the other players kept commenting that if people took the whole time to put on their armour, hundreds of people would die. At one point, the bard practically yelled at the whining player (whom she's been common-law married to for 5 years) who was complaining that the other PCs didn't wait for them, "People are dying! What are we supposed to do!?"

This style of play is both leading the characters and cuddling them.
i.e. Play the game my way and trust that you will be fine or sit out.

Actually they didn't have to relly on blind trust that the DM wouldn't kill them outright (although the DM should never just kill characters outright anyway)

This was, indeed, how the choice was perceived by some players. However, from a metagaming standpoint, this was not really the case because (a) it was clear to anyone arriving at the combat that the vampires had their hands full controlling and herding into their tower the 140 guards outside (b) it was clear to anyone arriving at this combat that the vampires had cast all their high level spells to mind-control so many troops and to surround them with walls of stone, fire, etc. (c) because the primary objective of the vampires was to turn the guards, not kill the players, no one disengaging from combat with the vampires was ever pursued

They had the information on what was going on, they didn't need blind trust in the DM to know this, they didn't need blind trust in the DM to know that the other PCs were fighting, the choice was help or not help. The only one who had a problem with this was the one who left the table to go read a book, and later had a fit. He was mad that the rules were not changed to suit him.

This isn’t the point. Whether these characters can use their abilities or not isn’t the question at hand. It might very well be less fun fighting without all of your abilities being effective however I think that is where some of the fun comes in. Though as I started off staying this isn’t the point. What is more important to this is whether or not sitting out is fun. It is certainly more fun playing than not. However a player shouldn’t have to decide between him/herself having fun and the logical character choices.

Your saying that the whole premise of the adventure is bad because it contained a choice of saving people or letting people die?

Logically it can be proven that there high level vampires wisards that were waiting for the characters. They had high enough spells to bring into the battle things like dire lions, tigers, and bears oh my! These creatures don’t care if the clerics have NEP spells on them or not. You ever see how fast a dire bear goes through a character with AC 14? The players thought that it was better to put on there armor. I agree with the decision that they made at the time and with the hindsight that it would have been better to go in knowing how it was going to turn out.

This was, indeed, how the choice was perceived by some players. However, from a metagaming standpoint, this was not really the case because (a) it was clear to anyone arriving at the combat that the vampires had their hands full controlling and herding into their tower the 140 guards outside (b) it was clear to anyone arriving at this combat that the vampires had cast all their high level spells to mind-control so many troops and to surround them with walls of stone, fire, etc. (c) because the primary objective of the vampires was to turn the guards, not kill the players, no one disengaging from combat with the vampires was ever pursued

It turned out that nearly 100 people died because they showed up late. (Summon Monster 5:Celestial Dire Lion; Summon Monster 7:Fiendish Dire Tiger; Summon Monster 6:Celestial Dire Bear. Wouldn't the fact that the wizards had obviously used all their high level spells nullify the chances of this happening?)

No special treatment is needed. 4 players leave to fight a battle that they shouldn’t be able to win. They get routed and hurt in the process and return to the clerics to be healed and they launch a second wave. That how I would have handled it. No special treatment for the people in or out of combat.

The four who fought came up with a plan to get help from the Duke, should he of told them no, you must get beaten up and go back to find the clerics?

This was me adjusting to the fact that the three characters with special anti-undead powers were not coming to the combat and giving my PCs the benefit of the doubt in carrying off a backup plan.

I guess you're right that I could have made the duke unwilling to come right away or have a new shift of guards decide not to obey the duke's standing order to let the characters into the palace. But in my view, that would have been unfairly penalizing the characters who actually decided to engage the adventure.

Sometimes combats don’t go the way that a DM planned and he is forced to dynamic and think on his feet. He usually doesn’t have to bend or break the rules just think creatively.

The guy left the room and said call me when I have my armor on.

 

[drnuncheon]

"But, why? Why is the line somewhere between 40 rounds and 600 rounds, and not between 4 rounds and 40 rounds? Isn't it completely arbitrary?"

Because there is a difference. No it not arbitrary. Time is passing and things will happen.

Time is passing in between 4 rounds and 40 rounds, too. What makes the dividing line hours instead of minutes (or days)?

I would never predetermine an encounter in this way. If the 4 were sufficiently clever enough to actually beat the encounter, then more power to them - I obviously underestimated my players. I'm not going to arbitrarily change things to make it so that they must have the others. (But I'm not going to make it easier on them because they left people behind, either.)
If anything, that is what is not fair - you're hosing the PCs for making good choices and winning when they weren't "supposed to".


The DM has already predetermined the combat in that he said that he wanted to make the players fight without their armor.

I think you misunderstad what I was saying. Fusangite was in no way predetermining the result of the encounter by trying to make the players fight without their armor. He was determining the conditions, but all DMs do that at all times anyway.

I didn’t think that he should have changed anything either in the combat.

But you just said that the 4 players who went to fight should have been smacked down and sent home crying to mommy for coming without the other 3.

If the players come up with a plan that would let them win, would you have done it? Or would you have stuck with the above?

He did however fall back on the NPC jumping in to save the PCs(at their request).

I'm still missing the 'saving them' part. The NPC came and helped in the battle, OK. Based on fusangite's testimony, he did for a whopping 3 combatants, so I'm not sure he saved them.

BTW if 4 players could have beat the enemy then I think that it would have been poorly planned.

So, your players never surprise you? Your players never have good luck or a brilliant plan to let them beat the odds? Really? I have a hard time believing that.

But you just said that 600 rounds was too long. What if the wizard said "I'm not going unless I'm full up on spells"? Aren't you 'hosing him out of playing? Or is he hosing himself? And if he is hosing himself out of playing...aren't the people insisting on the armor doing exactly the same thing?

Yes, based on the situation, as I said above the two different amounts of time have different affects on the battlefield. The above situation becomes unreasonable because of the difference in times. It isn’t arbitary.

If it's not arbitrary, then please share your criteria for making the decision.

I have never met a player that always expected that he would have his full compliment of spells for every battle.

Well, I've never met a player who always expected to have all of his toys, but apparently Fusangite has.

Like I said before it is a false analogy. To put them on the same level the 3 wizards (in our hypoth. Group) would have had to all lost all their armor related defensive spells but had good offensive touch spells the required that he get into melee yet had the option to find and cast the armor spells but they needed in 40 rounds through their own searching or 20 rounds with help and maybe less with haste to cast those spells.

Because searing light and turning undead are melee touch attacks, right?

Sounds to me like your NPCs are the ones getting special treatment, because you've already decided the course of the battle.

Which NPC is getting better treatment? I don’t get this statement.

Well, one more time:

If you predetermine the result of an encounter such that 4 PCs cannot win, and you change the encounter to do so, then you are giving the NPCs special treatment - you're cheating for them.

Now, if that's not what you meant when you said things like "the 4 that decided to fight an encounter planned out for 7 players should have got their butts handed to them" or "4 players leave to fight a battle that they shouldn’t be able to win. They get routed and hurt in the process and return to the clerics to be healed and they launch a second wave. That how I would have handled it." then I apologize.

But it sure sounded like it to me.

 

[jdavis]

Because there is a difference. No it not arbitrary. Time is passing and things will happen.
The difference between those to times and waiting is huge. If the first is deemed necessary the players might accept that the first battle is going to be lost without them. They chose to regroup at full strength and counterstrike.
The 1 hour later is accepting a much greater loss. And things would have to be vastly different to justify that.

Actually in this situation there really is no difference between 4 minutes or a hour.

Originally posted by fusangite
That would likely have happened if the whole group had decided to sit at home while the armoured characters put their armour on. That eventuality I had planned for, complete with different locations, available spells, etc. for the vampires. The group would have found the tower heavily fortified and well-defended with the guard pretty well wiped-out.

People were dying, 4 minutes or one hour, people are dying because the PCs are not saving them. They are dead either way.

The DM has already predetermined the combat in that he said that he wanted to make the players fight without their armor. I didn’t think that he should have changed anything either in the combat. He did however fall back on the NPC jumping in to save the PCs(at their request). IMO not a good thing to happen as it further keeps the 3 players out the session and yeild more situations were the players split up. BTW if 4 players could have beat the enemy then I think that it would have been poorly planned.

The DM planned on two situations, them attacking immediatly and them waiting on the armor. He did not plan on them splitting up. If there is any fault on the DM it's that he didn't plan it for three different situations (and that requires him to realize this would happen, we don't know if the group has a history of splitting up, but I sort of doubt they do by what's been said), but once it starts and the party chooses to split up, and one group insist on fighting and one group insist on not fighting what do you do? Who do you tell to change their action. How do you force them to stay together as a group?

Yes, based on the situation, as I said above the two different amounts of time have different affects on the battlefield. The above situation becomes unreasonable because of the difference in times. It isn’t arbitary. I have never met a player that always expected that he would have his full compliment of spells for every battle. Like I said before it is a false analogy. To put them on the same level the 3 wizards (in our hypoth. Group) would have had to all lost all their armor related defensive spells but had good offensive touch spells the required that he get into melee yet had the option to find and cast the armor spells but they needed in 40 rounds through their own searching or 20 rounds with help and maybe less with haste to cast those spells.

Based on the situation given too late was too late. The guards were dying, in 4 minutes they were just as dead as in one hour. You can't say they were more dead a hour later.

 

[Creeping Death]

*dang too slow*

 

[Elvinis75]

So the players are wrong for not sending out one scout and the others helping with the armor (even though it was stated that there were servants to help with the armor). Well he did say he planned for that: Of course then they would of let all the guards be killed, it sort of seems the whole point was to save the guards who were being slaughtered. But once again how is it the DMs fault the group decided to split up? This was not something he could change, it was the PCs decision to split up, four saw things one way three of them saw things another way. Which group should he of forced to change their actions?

If there are servants than we should be taking about 20 rounds not 40. If they sent out half the group to scout and never talked before they left is a serious flaw in roleplaying. Metagame or not. “If were not back in x rounds come running”.
It isn’t the fault of the DM that the party split up. It isn’t the fault of the DM that the some of characters stayed. Neither. But I would account for this as a true choice in the future. There are going to be times that characters refuse to let the DM totally control the flow as they have personal reasons to do things. The important thing to learn is to think on your feet and roll with the punches.

Even when some of them don't mind and the other walks away from the table?: If the players make a choice to not play then what do you do? At that point he could only change the rules to give the angry player what he wanted, the player refused any other options but for him to get his armor on instantly.

I guess that I just feel sad for him that his characters are totally ok with missing the better portion of the night because of the planned encounter. I think that none of my players would have been down with this.

Your saying that the whole premise of the adventure is bad because it contained a choice of saving people or letting people die?

No I saying that it was bad for him to assume that there was little chance of the characters buying everything that was happening. The vampire have a high int yet they do things that are incredibly stupid. Thus some made a third choice that they are not likely to make again.

(Summon Monster 5:Celestial Dire Lion; Summon Monster 7:Fiendish Dire Tiger; Summon Monster 6:Celestial Dire Bear. Wouldn't the fact that the wizards had obviously used all their high level spells nullify the chances of this happening?)

Ever heard of scrolls? Just because PC 1-4 show up with certain high level spells going doesn’t mean that they cast or did our PCs sit there and watch this all happen?. So I don’t know how it was clear that anyone knew anything just by showing up. I’m sorry but everything is just too convienent for me to believe. I like the little saying that says all things being equal the simplest explaination is the correct one. I put that to be (from the players perspective ) that this is a setup. You all say that they chose to sit out. I think that is a tossup given their perspective and the things that they “knew”. I think that they chose to play it safe and sat the session for it.

The guy left the room probably because he got bored or knew that he was going to have to wait. Either way I have already address the quality of this one guy.

 

[Elvinis75]

Time is passing in between 4 rounds and 40 rounds, too. What makes the dividing line hours instead of minutes (or days)?
Time is passing in between 4 rounds and 40 rounds, too. What makes the dividing line hours instead of minutes (or days)?

Well I guess with the helpers it was really 20 rounds but like I said it come down to acceptable losses or not. Risk assessment and action.

I think you misunderstad what I was saying. Fusangite was in no way predetermining the result of the encounter by trying to make the players fight without their armor. He was determining the conditions, but all DMs do that at all times anyway.

If he was trying to make them fight without armor he should have seen that some of them might not and the others who didn’t have the limitation would act as there characters normally would.

But you just said that the 4 players who went to fight should have been smacked down and sent home crying to mommy for coming without the other 3.
If the players come up with a plan that would let them win, would you have done it? Or would you have stuck with the above?
I think that the NPC villains where played out too stupid to be believable. If the challenge rating as so low that half of the party could handle it with little help from the duke it was too easy.

I'm still missing the 'saving them' part. The NPC came and helped in the battle, OK. Based on fusangite's testimony, he did for a whopping 3 combatants, so I'm not sure he saved them.
Which three? That is important. Three spawn not much help. Three of the higher vampires is a lot of help.

So, your players never surprise you? Your players never have good luck or a brilliant plan to let them beat the odds? Really? I have a hard time believing that.
My players are very crafty but EL there was weaken to a point of disbelief. The vamps so stupid that monkeys with typewriters and little time could have planned better.
quote:

If it's not arbitrary, then please share your criteria for making the decision.

All ready did. One battle versus the war.
quote:

Because searing light and turning undead are melee touch attacks, right?

I think that tactical discussion flies out the window with all of the higher level spells and the intellect of our vampires. Turning is definitely close range and searing light is not. The searing light would have been very affective
quote:

Well, one more time:

If you predetermine the result of an encounter such that 4 PCs cannot win, and you change the encounter to do so, then you are giving the NPCs special treatment - you're cheating for them.

Now, if that's not what you meant when you said things like "the 4 that decided to fight an encounter planned out for 7 players should have got their butts handed to them" or "4 players leave to fight a battle that they shouldn’t be able to win. They get routed and hurt in the process and return to the clerics to be healed and they launch a second wave. That how I would have handled it." then I apologize.

But it sure sounded like it to me.

I’m not predetermining anything but I’m not for totally playing highly intelligent vampires like idiots either. I am assumeing that the DM wanted his climatic battle to be a challenge for all 7 characters and the what is normally challenging for 7 – 12th level characters is very hard to nearly impossible for 4. I meant the second. It makes more sense that they would fail considering.

 

[jdavis]

If there are servants than we should be taking about 20 rounds not 40. If they sent out half the group to scout and never talked before they left is a serious flaw in roleplaying. Metagame or not. “If were not back in x rounds come running”.
It isn’t the fault of the DM that the party split up. It isn’t the fault of the DM that the some of characters stayed. Neither. But I would account for this as a true choice in the future. There are going to be times that characters refuse to let the DM totally control the flow as they have personal reasons to do things. The important thing to learn is to think on your feet and roll with the punches.
[/B]

Your right on the rounds.

Given that they insisted on spending 25 rounds donning armour (10 without assistance, 15 with), I'm not sure what I could have done to involve them without suspending the armour donning rule, which is what the one player kept demanding. For the first 10 of these rounds, I kept saying, "you can stop donning your armour any time."

Well they always play the same way, they are used to people knowing things through meta conversations, why would they even think to discuss things beforehand.

So, they decided to stay and fight, figuring that once a few rounds had elapsed past the 4 it would take them to get back and warn their compatriots, their friends would realize that they were facing some sort of emergency and rush in to aid them.

They were talking during the game about stuff too, heck the four were apparently talking to the three while the situation was going on.

Well, I thought saying "it will take 40 rounds to don this armour. You can stop putting it on any time," 20 times would have been sufficient. I have to tell you, this thing hit me right out of left field. Similarly, the other players kept commenting that if people took the whole time to put on their armour, hundreds of people would die. At one point, the bard practically yelled at the whining player (whom she's been common-law married to for 5 years) who was complaining that the other PCs didn't wait for them, "People are dying! What are we supposed to do!?"

I also don't think he was trying to totally control the flow of the game, he planned for two totally separate situations, he says he plans adventures of all types and tries to cater to all the characters likes and dislikes. It really sounds like he goes out of his way to entertain his players.

I guess that I just feel sad for him that his characters are totally ok with missing the better portion of the night because of the planned encounter. I think that none of my players would have been down with this.

Why are you sad? When you are playing a longterm storyline based campaigns there will be times when not everybody gets to participate (not every character is good in political situations for instance.) I would of never had this problem in my group because none of my players would choose to sit there, they would head for the fight. As far as the thread goes.

Now, I have no quarrel with my players' choices. The fact that 3 turned down participating in a combat I spent 10 hours setting up is not my problem. My problem is the abusive verbal outburst from one of them who told me that I had ruined his evening and wasted his valuable time by enforcing the armour donning rules and that by not allowing him to don his Full Plate instantaneously, I had decided not to let him play. He insisted that I was a lousy GM because a good GM would have "let everybody play." When I suggested that any time he wanted to stop putting on his armour, he could have participated, he became more abusive and stormed out.

No I saying that it was bad for him to assume that there was little chance of the characters buying everything that was happening. The vampire have a high int yet they do things that are incredibly stupid. Thus some made a third choice that they are not likely to make again.

I don't see anything that stupid that the vampires did here, they planned on capturing and turning as many soldiers as possible to help them take over the city. They were not there to kill the PCs they were there to take over the city. They had knowledge ofhow the PCs would react, because former PCs and NPCs were now vampires. They planned on the PCs wasting time with armor so they could complete their plan and fortify their position, the whole adventure was designed around a attack on the city not the PCs.

Ever heard of scrolls? Just because PC 1-4 show up with certain high level spells going doesn’t mean that they cast or did our PCs sit there and watch this all happen?. So I don’t know how it was clear that anyone knew anything just by showing up. I’m sorry but everything is just too convienent for me to believe. I like the little saying that says all things being equal the simplest explaination is the correct one. I put that to be (from the players perspective ) that this is a setup. You all say that they chose to sit out. I think that is a tossup given their perspective and the things that they “knew”. I think that they chose to play it safe and sat the session for it.

Play it safe and let 160 people die, play it safe and risk 160 vampires running around the city the next day. Play it safe and let the vampires fortify themselves and regain their strength. heck why didn't they just play it safe and leave the city? As far as things just being too convienent, well if you don't believe his statements and we were not actually there then this is not going to go anywhere, but I think that makes what your problem with this is apparent. You don't believe his story. Oh and on the scroll thing, well they could of had scrolls for anything, I guess they should always assume that they are going against enemies with infinate spells. Of course that really doesn't bring back any of the 70 or so guards who they let die because they didn't even put out a effort to save them.
Of course the the clerics could of had summon monster spells too, maybe they could of summoned their own creatures, you know I could go down the clerics spell list and point out of possible spells they could of used to protect themselves (such as Magic Vestment on a shield or Protection from Evil, which would both help raise their AC and protect them from summoned creatures.) But the fact is we both know they had tons of potential moves they could of made to protect themselves and still get there in time to save people's lives. They are clerics not fighters, the armor is not the end all be all of being a cleric, they have spells, and they were still better prepared for this encounter than anybody else in the group, even without the armor. We could come up will all sorts of theoretical situations but in the end people were being killed, this wasn't a few people, this was a slaughter, this was a huge tragedy, they allowed without even trying to stop it.

The guy left the room probably because he got bored or knew that he was going to have to wait. Either way I have already address the quality of this one guy.

We don't need to go into the guy but it was covered back on page two that he had a habit of leaving the room when he wasn't directly involved. As far as him knowing he would have to wait, well that was his choice, he didn't have to wait, nobody forced him to wait, he was just mad that the rules were not changed to allow him to have his cake and eat it too.

 

[drnuncheon]

Your right on the rounds.

Actually, he's not. IIRC they all had full plate, and full plate takes 4 minutes to don with help. (without help, it also takes 4 minutes, but you are considerd to have donned it hastily, with all the penalties that that implies)

J

 

[jdavis]

Well I guess with the helpers it was really 20 rounds but like I said it come down to acceptable losses or not. Risk assessment and action.
[/B]

How many people have to die for a cleric or paladin to have to move to save them. 1 how about 10, how about 70 well how about 160. If 160 people died because your character was too cowardly to take a risk to save them (any risk at all, these are men of faith) then was 70 people a acceptable loss? This whole adventure was not about them, it was about saving other people. It was about characters making choices, it was about things that go well beyond plain tactics, this was a decision to save lives or not, this was a moral decision for characters who are supposed to have a high level of moral responsibility. Firemen rush into burning buildings to save people all the time, what if they said, no wait I could get hurt if I go in there? How heroic is that? To heck with risk assessment, was 70 people dead a acceptable loss? And don't give me the "well they would do no good dead" arguement, would the firemen do anybody any good if the burning building fell in on him? At least he tried to save a life, these guys allowed 70 people to die, how many had families? This was a moral decision, that's the whole point here. They didn't even try to save them, they were to busy worrying that they might get hurt to save these people from dying.

If he was trying to make them fight without armor he should have seen that some of them might not and the others who didn’t have the limitation would act as there characters normally would.

Maybe he thought the heroic Paladin and the Clerics would of made the decision to save lives over being cowards. The characters who should of dropped everything and rushed to people's aid were the ones who didn't show, but the rogues decided to fight to save lives even though they were horribly outmatched. Boy they were stupid, they should of let the people die and saved there own skins.

Which three? That is important. Three spawn not much help. Three of the higher vampires is a lot of help.

He has said exactly who was killed in a previous post.

So, of the vampires who died that episode, one, I repeat, ONE was killed by the duke. How does that fit into your deus ex machina theory? He killed one 7th level vampire while the PCs managed to take out the 14th level archmage and some other vampires.

My players are very crafty but EL there was weaken to a point of disbelief. The vamps so stupid that monkeys with typewriters and little time could have planned better.

By the way, what people also seem to be missing is that the PCs were not the vampires' target. They were only the target insofar as they interposed themselves between the vampires and their actual target. The characters did, in fact, "lose" the battle because instead of saving all the guards, they saved only half of them -- 70 people lost their lives because of the PCs' failure; it's just that none of those 70 were PCs.

I think that tactical discussion flies out the window with all of the higher level spells and the intellect of our vampires. Turning is definitely close range and searing light is not. The searing light would have been very affective

Turning isn't a hand to hand thing it has a range of 60 feet. Of course there are so many other things the clerics could of done here it's hard to see any way that they wouldn't of excelled in this situation. They had the best chance of anybody and could of made a huge difference in this fight (armor has nothing to do with it).

I’m not predetermining anything but I’m not for totally playing highly intelligent vampires like idiots either. I am assumeing that the DM wanted his climatic battle to be a challenge for all 7 characters and the what is normally challenging for 7 – 12th level characters is very hard to nearly impossible for 4. I meant the second. It makes more sense that they would fail considering.

Well he did point out that he didn't want to penalize the 4 because they came up with a decent plan to win (getting the Duke). He also pointed out that the adventure was also the focus of the next adventure, the climatic battle took 2 sessions, it was only the first session that the clerics set out of. This didn't end at the end of the night, he also pointed out that the sorcerer/wizard characters were at a severe disadvantage the next session because they had already used up all their spells. He also pointed out that they actually did fail the first night, they lost that fight.

 

[jdavis]

Actually, he's not. IIRC they all had full plate, and full plate takes 4 minutes to don with help. (without help, it also takes 4 minutes, but you are considerd to have donned it hastily, with all the penalties that that implies)

J

Oops, your right, I guess the players caught a break on that, gee it seems like they were actually cut some slack on the armor thing.