Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 919897" data-attributes="member: 336">The only difference between the situation described and this analogy is that the group that decided to put on the armor was never told what was happening.  They weren't directly under attack.  They heard and explosion and assumed that getting ready to do battle might be a good idea.  So assuming that you can get prepared might not be an unusual thought.In addition, apparently the other PCs decided that getting the Duke was a better idea.  Of course the Duke and his troops must have been able to be roused from sleep, prepared for combat and moved into position to attack the vampires before the others were able to get their armor on.   It seems to me that everyone that responded to the threat had multiple stackable haste effects going on.  The guys donning armor were suffering from the effects of multiple stackable slow effects.I agree the DM did nothing apparently wrong.  However, a large portion of his players didn't participate at all (3 out of 7, IIRC).  That seems strange to me from a DM's perspective.  It tells me that either they didn't understand the situation.  In this case they were happily donning gear while the guards were slaughtered.  But the other PCs (the ones that had the information) did nothing to let them know how important it was to get to the combat.Or the other case would be that they were using the metagame knowledge of  what was happening and decided that the risk was not worth taking.  This is the same metagame knowledge that the player that went and got the Duke used to figure out that his comrades were not going to join the battle (they were putting on armor) so it was better to get the Duke...   Now, that whole metagame logic seems very flawed to me.Did the DM do something wrong.  I haven't said that.I think he handled the encounter like he had planned it.  However, I think that the timing of the encounter was off.  And it was off in a clear disadvantage to the ones that were donning armor.The DM even mentioned (I quote below) that he was tired of people having armor on at inappropriate times.So this encounter was clearly a way to put those characters at a disadvantage.  There is nothing wrong with that.  I put characters at disadvantages all the time.  That is part of making a believable and fun game.However lets look at the whole timing of this encounter and see if it just seems slightly skewed.There is an explosion.  They PCs hear it.  The ones that don't wear armor head out to investigate.  The one that wear armor decide to don it.  (START THE CLOCK)The investigators head over to the tower (supposedly 4 rounds)They see what is happening and make an assessment of the situation (This apparently happens instantaneously.)Then the funny timing really beginsHow can someone:1. Get to the scene of the battle.2. Take some time to assess what is happening.3. Make a metagame decision to go get the Duke because the rest of the party will not join them.4. Get to the Duke and rouse him from his sleep in the middle of the night.5. Explain to him the situation at hand.6. Get the Duke to decide that he will help.7. Get the Duke and whatever troops the Duke decides to send outfitted and ready.8. And then get back to the scene of the battle.  All that sequence had to happen in less than four minutesMind you the person that went and got the Duke didn't have to stay and wait for the Duke and his cronies.  But the Duke and his cronies were obviously there in less time than four minutes.  So how does that make sense?I agree.Fusangite, I still say that you did nothing fundamentally wrong by pitting the party against uneven odds.  But I do believe that your distaste for them always having armor on skewed this encounter so that the players were not able to be involved.  That part I don't agree on.I already recommended two courses of action that would have still accomplished what you wanted and still would have kept the players involved.1. Let them get there later but still be part of the combat2. Assume that the whole time that was taken to warn the Duke, etc. was longer than the time it takes to put on armor.In either case I'm sure that involved players are much more pleased with a game than players that are basically forced to sit in a corner while the combat rages around them because they decided to don armor.That the player was verbally abusive is not excusable.  I've said that before and I will continue to say it.  Gauging from the attitude that he displays in most situations that you and Teflon Billy have described I think this players should be talked to separately and advised that his behavior is not welcome.  If he chooses to continue with that behavior ask him nicely not to come back.</blockquote>

Verification