DM seeks validation

[BaldHero]

This deals with the PF rules, so here i go...
I have a group of three players, all veterans of the game.
They are playing gestalt characters, level 4. A monk/rogue cleric/ranger
and Wiz/Ranger.

The group had picked up right where they left off last session, and so they were in need of a rest. They did not rest.

Before the encounter that resulted in a TPK, one of the members suffered a curse that reduced his INT by 6. He played the effect very well, and i am not certain that the other two players noticed that he was acting about as smart as a pack animal.

The characters disturb a statue that sounds an alarm, and draws a wandering monster. I did not notice that the party was unrested. I rolled the wandering monster, and got a bearded devil. So, a bearded devil "bamfs: into the room, and proceeds to attack.

The fight went pretty well. I had one character just sort of attacking (INT curse and all) but also trying to avoid the bad guy that could hurt him, a second character was busy switching weapons and dealing some damage and healing a bit. The third character was dealing really good damage with shurikens and flurry of blows. Eventually however, my dice rolled swell, and theirs not so much.

Two issues are up for discussion. First, the kewl bleed effect of the bearded devil. The wording seems to imply to me that each wound it inflicts, bleeds for 2 hp per round. I interpreted it that way last night, and so as they were being hit, the bleed hp increased, the bleeding got worse. I read bleed, and found nothing that suggested otherwise. Was i right?

Second, i use hp totals in the bestiary as guidelines, and i often use max hp to make sure that my clever and resourceful players are still challenged.

Last night was a tpk, and i want to know if others think i was fair or not.
The players never made any attempt to flee, standing their ground, but moving about the space to try and get good positions. The Monk/Rogue mentioned that he had forgotten to use his sneak attack ability, and the Cleric/Ranger mentioned that he had not been rested going into the fight.

Valid TPK, or should i reconsider?

THX

 

[freyar]

As far as resting, that was their choice, so I wouldn't worry about that so much.

Ok, the original CR of the monster is 5, which is a little difficult for the party level, but ok. But then you bumped from average hp (57) to max hp (84), which may just be good for an extra CR. For 3 level 4 characters, that's a little tougher, but not ridiculous.

As for bleed, I think you went a little overboard. It doesn't say in the universal monster rules, but the conditions section of the PRD says

Bleed: A creature that is taking bleed damage takes the listed amount of damage at the beginning of its turn. Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage (even if the bleed is ability damage). Some bleed effects cause ability damage or even ability drain. Bleed effects do not stack with each other unless they deal different kinds of damage. When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect. In this case, ability drain is worse than ability damage.

So it shouldn't stack. Bleeding shouldn't get worse with each attack, then. (They really should have listed that in the universal monster rules too, IMHO.) In this case, maybe you want to have them wake up at 1 hp as prisoners or something?

 

[uffinf]

...
As for bleed, I think you went a little overboard. It doesn't say in the universal monster rules, but the conditions section of the PRD says

So it shouldn't stack.

What he said bleed effects of the same type don't stack.

 

[billd91]

All is not necessarily lost. If you can estimate how many hps each PC would have left at the point the fight ended had you not been stacking the bleed damage, you could take up the fight at that point again with the PCs still having options. And maybe this time, they'll realize that you won't stop them from dying if they foolishly stand their ground.

I'd also consider retroactively putting the devil's hp down a notch from max, especially if they don't know it started at max hp. Assuming they don't all have good or silver weapons, their damage is already significantly reduced by the DR. No need to stack up the hp as well to make it a tough fight.

Normally, I'm not in favor of do-overs or retconning due to a missed rule. I normally say play on and I'll do better with that rule next time. But if it contributed significantly to a TPK, I would try to reset to the point where the rule got misapplied and go from there.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I think people are missing the part where this is a gestalt game, so a normally CR 5 creature with some extra hp IS a fair challenge for the party, not a hard one.

As far as bleed not stacking, yeah, it looks like you messed that up. Considering other sources of bleed I see for player classes in PF all explicitly say it doesn't stack, I probably would have seen the devil's description, figured it did stack, and not check the general condition statement, too.

If you are going to recalculate their "real" hp losses...you said the cleric was healing. Now, while bleed doesn't stack, I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed to overlap. Just as someone buffed with 5 of the same spell would need 5 dispel magics to debuff completely, I would rule that you need 5 heal checks or seperate instances of magical healing to get rid of the bleed on someone who's been hit with it 5 times. Just my opinion.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Uhmmm. *sigh* Let's leave behind the sugar-coating. When you have a TPK from a wandering monster? Yeah - usually that means the DM screwed up.

Absent complete idiocy on the players' part, throwing any wandering monster at a party which has the capability to take out the party from just a "wandering monster" is almost always simply an excessive encounter.

You can't blame "average" bad luck for that either , as the possibility of "average" bad luck must be taken into account when the DM selects a foe. Wandering monsters are old skool "keep em on their toes" means of disrupting the party and consuming resources so that the party is not at its best for the main encounters and the boss battle in ... whatever dungeon it is that they are in.

But usually when the wandering monster TPKs the party? Yeah that's a pretty crappy encounter.

So ask yourself a question:

Q: If the bleeding had not stacked - would the party have survived?

If the answer is "yes", then we're done. The real issue is that you screwed up in a misapplication of a specific Rule. It happens and most of us have been there. *shrug*

In the answer is NO and you think they would have died anyway even if the bleeding rules had not stacked - then the reason for the TPK was because:

• the Players would have died as their tactics were utterly reckless and ill-suited to the challenge -- PLAYERS' FAULT;

OR

• the Players would have died as their rolls were just utterly terrible and the monster's rolls were way beyond any measure of "good" luck that could reasonably have been expected -- FATE's FAULT;

OR

• the Players would have died as they were overmatched by the power of the monster's excessive hit points, significant magical defences and resistances, and overall general lethality -- DM's FAULT

Pick the appropriate answer. You were there -- we weren't.

It's not really much more complicated than that and I expect you know the answers to these things already.

Done is done. As long as there isn't siginificant ill feelings from your players or any emotional fallout that will effect the next game - then just chalk it up as "not your favorite gaming moment" and move on.

 

[BaldHero]

Uhmmm. *sigh* Let's leave behind the sugar-coating. When you have a TPK from a wandering monster? Yeah - usually that means the DM screwed up.

Absent complete idiocy on the players' part, throwing any wandering monster at a party which has the capability to take out the party from just a "wandering monster" is almost always simply an excessive encounter.

Luckily for me, the party was pretty idiotic.
but what defines "excessive" in this case?
Also lets leave behind the condescension that seems to be apparent in your post.

You can't blame "average" bad luck for that either , as the possibility of "average" bad luck must be taken into account when the DM selects a foe. Wandering monsters are old skool "keep em on their toes" means of disrupting the party and consuming resources so that the party is not at its best for the main encounters and the boss battle in ... whatever dungeon it is that they are in.

I have no idea what you are saying here, but it is making me angry.

But usually when the wandering monster TPKs the party? Yeah that's a pretty crappy encounter.

I disagree. Wandering monsters are not just supposed to be flavor text are they? I use wandering monsters to create a dynamic play experience. They are there to test and consume the resources of my players, as well as provide extra bits of EP for them. Why is it crappier to die to the bearded devil that showed up unexpectedly, than it is to die to at the hands of the bearded devil that is stationed at post A in room 13 on dungeon level 12?

So ask yourself a question:

Q: If the bleeding had not stacked - would the party have survived?

I answer with a firm and very definite maybe.

I finally found the rules for bleed, and would have liked to know that it didn't stack with it's self when i looked at the bestiary. Having to look for a more detailed and better explanation in the core book was silly. But now we know and will move on. No big deal.

In response to all of the above:
Monster had max HP.
Bleed was stacking.
One character was not involved due to low int.
One character spent more time trying to find just the right weapon combo.
One character was killing the crap out of the demon with shuriken.
The party did not rest.
The party did not remove the curse from their cursed member.
The party did not retreat.
The party rogue was not using sneak attack dice.
The Party rolled poorly.
The party refused surrender.


I made the decision about max HP, that was it. I stacked the bleed. The rest is all them.

Sometime you run into bad guys when you don't expect too. Sometimes they are tougher than you expect, and you are already having a craptacular day.

The flavor of your post seems to indicate that you dislike allowing a wandering monster to end a party. Why is that? Do you feel it makes their end seem less glorious? Takes away from player fun? Keeps them from noble death at an adventures climax? Or something else?

Thanks to everyone for the feedback.

The TPK stands.

 

[Steel_Wind]

A classic “wandering monster” is an “extra” denizen of a dungeon that is met outside of a particular location. If the creature would be OTHERWISE met at a given location but MAY be met wandering in the ruins/dungeon depending on certain factors – then that’s different. Then it’s just changing up the order and possible encounter map and other details of the fight. It can effect the overall challenge level of the dungeon (as it may disrupt section flow), but usually it’s not too much of a big deal.

If the encounter is just an extra something rolled from a chart (which is what this very much sounds like to me) then I think it’s a crappy adventure design. Very old skool – very legitimate – very authentic -- and very, very craptastic, just the same.

Why? Because, imo, a good dungeon ought to be presenting a reasonably balanced challenge for your players, when viewed as a whole – or crunched up into sections. It may be that the party will have an opportunity to rest within the dungeon to regain their health and resources. If so, that simply changes the # of sections of the dungeon that need to be evaluated together (instead of as a whole) when evaluating whether or not the overall threat the party must face is a reasonably fair one.

That’s modern adventure design. Once you start introducing random elements into that design, you will begin to draw upon the resources of the party in unpredictable ways at unpredictable times that can lead to a TPK. Like...throwing a random CR6 Outsider against a party of 3 CR3/4 characters who have not rested, say.

The result? A TPK. Usually, players consider that to not be very much fun. Most DMs consider it to be a pretty sucky event, too.

“Average” bad luck – for good or ill – has to be accounted for by your providing some wiggle room for your players – and you – so you can avoid a TPK. If you don’t provide that wiggle room by rolling behind a screen, you might have to provide it by lessening the threat posed by the foes that engage the party.

Disastrous bad luck, on the other hand, i.e parties that consistently miss and monsters that almost never miss and roll several critical hits? Well – in fairness, that’s so unusual that no DM can be expected to reasonably account for a run of bad luck like that when designing a dungeon area or determining the CR or EL of an encounter .

In terms of the design question, it all comes down to this:

Did the Bearded Devil fulfill the roll that you think a wondering monster should be fulfilling in a dungeon?

I use wandering monsters to create a dynamic play experience. They are there to test and consume the resources of my players, as well as provide extra bits of EP for them.

Test and consume the resources of your players? It certainly did that; however, I’m not sure how “dynamic” a dead party is.

Why is it crappier to die to the bearded devil that showed up unexpectedly, than it is to die to at the hands of the bearded devil that is stationed at post A in room 13 on dungeon level 12?

Because a creature that is located in a particular area, generally, has to be deliberately engaged by the party after they make a conscious decision to do so. They make a decision to trigger the fight, or at least a series of fights (of which that encounter may be a sequential part) by making a deliberate and conscious choice to do so in game. In most cases, the decision to trigger the fight is a decision made at a time when the PCs believe they have done their best to make the encounter “winnable” – because that’s fun for the players.

In this case, they made no obvious choice to trigger such a fight, not having been rested and regained their faculties and resources. I’m not sure what they were doing at that point. Might be they were just probing about and looking for a spot to rest or to see if there was one more encounter they could choose to fight and then rest? I expect they think they had not made a conscious choice to engage a Bearded Devil, right then and there.

Instead, the designer of the dungeon made that choice for them and a TPK resulted. Had the error been all theirs – they’d blame themselves. Now, my guess is that they are blaming you somewhat – and my guess is that they might feel somewhat victimized or put upon in the circumstances, whereas otherwise, they would be far less inclined to feel that way.

That would be a distinction with a difference, to my way of thinking. You appear not to agree. That’s ok; it’s your game – not mine. Your opinion certainly matters more than my own, right?

But in the end, when it comes to a TPK, I put it to you the people whose opinion matters the most isn’t yours either – it’s the opinion of your players which matters most.

How’d they feel about all this?

 

[ruemere]

This deals with the PF rules, so here i go...
I have a group of three players, all veterans of the game.
They are playing gestalt characters, level 4. A monk/rogue cleric/ranger
and Wiz/Ranger.

Gestalt characters at lower levels are not particularly stronger than normal characters - economy of actions, low level spells and number of hitpoints make them rather vulnerable.
Also, low number of characters (3), minus one, results in significantly decreased damage output.

So, what you have had actually, was more like a party two levels lower.

The characters disturb a statue that sounds an alarm, and draws a wandering monster. I did not notice that the party was unrested. I rolled the wandering monster, and got a bearded devil. So, a bearded devil "bamfs: into the room, and proceeds to attack.

The fight went pretty well. I had one character just sort of attacking (INT curse and all) but also trying to avoid the bad guy that could hurt him, a second character was busy switching weapons and dealing some damage and healing a bit. The third character was dealing really good damage with shurikens and flurry of blows. Eventually however, my dice rolled swell, and theirs not so much.

This was a very risky encounter from the beginning. High CR difference (estimated 2 APL vs 5 CR) means also that the characters likely to face abilities they have no significant counters from.

Additionally, this particular monster has nasty special abilities, which are particularly challenging for parties running out of resources, namely summon and bleed.

So, what you have used, was a monster which attacked the weak sides of the party.
Additionally, this guy has teleport, 40' speed and great skills - running away would not save them.

Valid TPK, or should i reconsider?

THX

Personally, I like long campaigns. I don't hit parties with overwhelming monsters unless some foreshadowing is provided, and even then I usually build in some escape route.
Also, I consider a TPK to be a fail for everyone involved - TPK is the end of the story, loss of carefully laid out plans and sad way for heroes to leave the stage.

So while I would probably punish the characters for their stupidity, I would do two things:
1. Prevent TPK without patronizing characters (i.e. no last minute high level NPC saviours).
2. Punish characters without patronizing the players (i.e. don't let them feel being subjected to GM's rare moment of grace).

Examples of getting out of the clinch (i.e. TPK):
- the devil offers to let them live if one of the characters sells his soul (getting out of that bargain could make for a nice campaign arc)
- the devil kills the characters, however several days later another adventurer party raises them (15K GP is not a great issue for higher level character, and raising guys who probably know locale and could possibly become worthy cohorts is fine) - working off debt is also a nice story hook
- one of the characters rises as wight. Crying dry tears over his terrifying state, he grabs bodies of his friends and, while still sane, tries to make it in time to some temple in hope of getting redeemed.


Regards,
Ruemere

 

[gamerprinter]

Your anger is misplaced...

Luckily for me, the party was pretty idiotic.
but what defines "excessive" in this case?
Also lets leave behind the condescension that seems to be apparent in your post.



I have no idea what you are saying here, but it is making me angry.


I disagree. Wandering monsters are not just supposed to be flavor text are they? I use wandering monsters to create a dynamic play experience. They are there to test and consume the resources of my players, as well as provide extra bits of EP for them. Why is it crappier to die to the bearded devil that showed up unexpectedly, than it is to die to at the hands of the bearded devil that is stationed at post A in room 13 on dungeon level 12?


I answer with a firm and very definite maybe.

I finally found the rules for bleed, and would have liked to know that it didn't stack with it's self when i looked at the bestiary. Having to look for a more detailed and better explanation in the core book was silly. But now we know and will move on. No big deal.

In response to all of the above:
Monster had max HP.
Bleed was stacking.
One character was not involved due to low int.
One character spent more time trying to find just the right weapon combo.
One character was killing the crap out of the demon with shuriken.
The party did not rest.
The party did not remove the curse from their cursed member.
The party did not retreat.
The party rogue was not using sneak attack dice.
The Party rolled poorly.
The party refused surrender.


I made the decision about max HP, that was it. I stacked the bleed. The rest is all them.

Sometime you run into bad guys when you don't expect too. Sometimes they are tougher than you expect, and you are already having a craptacular day.

The flavor of your post seems to indicate that you dislike allowing a wandering monster to end a party. Why is that? Do you feel it makes their end seem less glorious? Takes away from player fun? Keeps them from noble death at an adventures climax? Or something else?

Thanks to everyone for the feedback.

The TPK stands.

Please understand, I'm not being rude. I carefully read Steelwind's response to you in this thread, and though his language is terse, I do not detect a hint of condescension in his post - none at all. I think your anger is misplaced here.

Basic point here is the wandering monsters is 1e/2e, not 3e and Pathfinder is much closer to 3e than any previous game. The other comments of what 1e wandering monsters were supposed to be even in older editions is they are not killing machines, but methods of using up needed spell slots, taking away hit points - basically weakening the party so they are less prepared to face the encounters of given dungeon.

Sure, bad luck in dice rolls could lead to a TPK, but from a wandering monster, that would be extremely rare (not impossible mind you, but almost).

I'm not trying to tell you how to run a game, but if you want wandering monsters then go play 1e/2e, where it belongs. Pathfinder is intended as a balanced game. Wandering monsters, unless used to use up resources is not balanced and does not belong in Pathfinder.

Of course, as with anything YMMV.

GP