Beware this dire warning. Ignore it at your peril!

[James McMurray]

I think the negative reaction comes because, in essence, you are saying that there shouldn't be any way to "kill" (= turn off) a PC other than grinding through his hp.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Stunning, dazing, restraining, etc. are all fine as written. It's swallow whole's lack of an escape route that I disagree with. Add save ends, allow escape checks, and/or offer other means of putting and end to the tedium and it goes back to being an ability I'll use in a game.

 

[LostSoul]

I think there's another thing that was missed:

The group (or maybe just the DM, I don't know) decided that there was nothing else you could do except for a Basic Attack.

 

[jaelis]

That's not what I'm saying at all. Stunning, dazing, restraining, etc. are all fine as written. It's swallow whole's lack of an escape route that I disagree with. Add save ends, allow escape checks, and/or offer other means of putting and end to the tedium and it goes back to being an ability I'll use in a game.

But stunning until the end of the encounter, with no save, would be a more fair comparison. You seem to feel that effects like that don't belong in the game, which is a completely fair opinion. But the contrasting opinion is also fair, and asserting your side will tend to provoke a response.

But I'm still not totally clear on one thing. If swallow whole were changed to allow no actions and no chance of escape, period, do you think that would be better, worse, or just the same? Your comment about preferring to just die is puzzling to me, given the other things you have said.

 

[James McMurray]

The group (or maybe just the DM, I don't know) decided that there was nothing else you could do except for a Basic Attack.

The rules decided it. I did a few other things, using spells that weren't attacks. But once I was out of those, the only attacks I could make were melee basic attacks, and escape happens when the monster is dead. That's what the (unerrattaed) MM says. The errattaed version is slightly better, in that it throws the wizard and warlock a bone.

But stunning until the end of the encounter, with no save, would be a more fair comparison. You seem to feel that effects like that don't belong in the game, which is a completely fair opinion.

That's exactly what I believe. And (if you listen to what they say instead of read their books) it's what the designers believe as well.

But the contrasting opinion is also fair, and asserting your side will tend to provoke a response.

I've said repeatedly that if people like that sort of thing they should use it. I can't help it if some folks need conflict when none is offered.

But I'm still not totally clear on one thing. If swallow whole were changed to allow no actions and no chance of escape, period, do you think that would be better, worse, or just the same? Your comment about preferring to just die is puzzling to me, given the other things you have said.

It would be only slightly worse and/or better. Worse in that there's now absolutely nothing you can do, but better in that you no longer need to feel chained to the table, and can go watch TV or something. At least when you die you can start making your next character (or go do something else if you're sure you'll be raised).

 

[LostSoul]

The rules decided it. I did a few other things, using spells that weren't attacks. But once I was out of those, the only attacks I could make were melee basic attacks, and escape happens when the monster is dead. That's what the (unerrattaed) MM says. The errattaed version is slightly better, in that it throws the wizard and warlock a bone.

I don't want to say you were "playing wrong" or not using the RAW, so let me get that out of the way to start off with!

Let's see what the text says:

The swallowed creature can make melee basic attacks only, and only with one-handed or natural weapons. If the purple worm dies, any creature trapepd in its gullet can escape as a move action, ending that action in a square formerly occupied by the purple worm.

When I read "can make melee basic attacks only", I see that as a restriction against using powers, not that the only actions you can take are melee basic attacks!

So I could see you, I don't know, trying to trigger some sort of gag / vomit reflex so that it would expel its tasty meal. (I think this is exactly the sort of thing the DM would want to say Yes to, not just because I think it's neat, but because you're having a crappy time in this encounter.)

The stuff about the purple worm dying and how you escape - I don't read that as the only way to escape; it's just the way you do escape once it dies.

I guess your group read the entry differently that I would.

My point is that this is what Page 42 and the advice to Say Yes are for. These kinds of situation where the rules are making an encounter not enjoyable for someone, so you use the rules there to adjudicate it so that you have more fun.

If my DM was saying to me, "No, you can't cut him out", "No, you can't use a rope to pull him out", "No, you can't trigger a gag reflex", "No, you can't use an Acrobatic stunt to get out," I'd have to talk with him about expectations about the game, how the encounter was not fun because of his rulings, and what we could do in the future to avoid things like this.

 

[Seeker]

Also, this sounds like a case where the "no gotcha abilities" rule comes into play. The GM should have let you and your party know that the wizard was going home for the night if nobody healed him, because of the way the monster works. ("The purple worm tastes blood and reflexively starts trying to swallow the wizard. You've got a round to make him less tasty.") I tend to agree with you, though; the arguments going the other way seem backwards -- player gets hit by something, has three rounds to get out of it -- rather than monster preps for three rounds and nukes the PC in one. Nonannoying game design is as much about the ability to undo things as to avoid them in the first place.

 

[charlesatan]

I think this boiled down to expectations.

First off, let's analyze the Purple Worm shall we?

It's a level 16 Solo -- belonging to the Paragon Tier.

I've noticed that by the Paragon Tier, the "Save or Die" effects start popping up. The Nightwalker has it, the Beholder has it, and in this case, let's just call the Purple Worm's Swallow ability a "Save or Die" effect.

Now this I think is where James wants to counter. He doesn't think that Swallow is a "Save or Die" effect.

But when I look at it, Swallow is like a "Save or Die" effect--although a step down from actual death because a) you can still attack, b) you're still alive for a few rounds or until the party can kill the Purple Worm, and c) you can escape via a few rare methods such as teleportation.

However, how different is that from the Beholder's ability to Petrify a PC which is a virtual "turn off" button and the only difference between Petrification and Death is that the former can be healed with more convenience via a ritual--which takes place after combat.

I don't think "Save or Die" effects are in the Heroic Tier. But come Paragon Tier, players have more options and there's not just an increase in power but there's also an increase in threat. (An extreme is comparing a Level 3 Solo with a Level 33 Solo.)

And again, there are several conditions to meet before the Purple Worm's actual "Save or Die" effect takes place.

Now James counters that the party didn't manage to counter the conditions for Swallow because it was a) Out of Character knowledge, b) the party's resources were mostly depleted, or c) his viable options required high rolls.

Again, for a), I told him that in D&D, it's not rocket science that the "bloodied" condition is a bad thing and triggers a lot of abilities--hence it might be tactically smart not to get to such a condition.

As for b), again, I countered with other examples wherein there are virtual turn-off buttons such as Orcus. The rebuttal? That the party has other means to counter it and that when a character dies, he/she gets stronger. I don't think that doesn't solve the resource question. If the party encountered Orcus when they had depleted most of their resources, it's still going to be a hard battle and they will just as easily fall for his "Save or Die" effects.

(And my only comment on the entire session is look, the party did manage to defeat the modified Purple Worm, and you survived. There are worst game sessions, such as a TPK. Those few rounds might have been "boring" for you, but so is getting stunned and failing all your saving throws.)

c) Again, I think it's great that D&D isn't reduce to a 50/50 roll. And as I said, I don't think you exploited all your other options. Again, if the rest of the party used the Aid Another action to help you escape the Grab, there's a probable chance that you would have. Also, the Purple Worm targets Reflex defenses and the Wizard theoretically has a decent Reflex defense (at least compared to, say, the Paladin).

So "turn off buttons" exists in 4E? Yes--in the Paragon and higher tiers. Bad news? Yes. Automatic success? No--there are various requirements that must be met.