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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5755270" data-attributes="member: 2011">As far as I am concerned, if players figure out a way to prevent an enemy from attacking them, they shouldn't be punished for it.DM: "Crap. You found the weakness in the module. Well, I can fix that. You're dead."Whatever.This only works for 3.5 and earlier. It's an old signature that I just like to keep around. It doesn't work for 4E, so maybe it doesn't make sense in your 4E argument.Maybe the Kraken was a joke as an encounter. It couldn't be slid or knocked prone or one attack blinds the entire Kraken, at least at our table. It should have been a single creature, but at our table, it was run as 4 different creatures which couldn't be affected by many things.Just like WotC "broke the rules" by doing teleport damage and dropping the resistance of fire potions in LA 1, they "broke the rules" by creating a creature that really wasn't a creature and for the most part, could only be damaged. Interestingly enough, our table never got a description of the head of the creature, so how exactly did the creature see us above it and on deck if we couldn't see it? For a well designed creature, it should have had to see the targets in order to distinguish friend from foe. The whole thing was not well thought out.I consider it pretty lame if they have to create quasi-non-creatures in order to challenge experienced players.As for the readied actions, WotC didn't tell DMs how to handle a pretty obvious situation, so all DMs will do it different. Your solution is no better than any other DM's solution. In fact, I consider your solution subpar because it's a DM entitled whiny solution.DM: "Well, well, you can't just avoid the Kraken. He's there to hit multiple PCs every round. If you go down below, I'll, I'll, ..., I'll destroy the ship. That's what I'll do."Your solution sounds like Trelane in Squire of Gothos.Still lame, no matter how you attempt to rationalize it.If your answer here is so obvious, why didn't WotC put the break checks or damage numbers in for DMs so that they wouldn't have to try to look it up?Maybe it's because WotC didn't think to kill the players outright like you did.Or, maybe you didn't think of the better answer and neither did WotC. Maybe your answer sucks, but you are unwilling to see that.I think your answer sucks. It's death without dice rolls.In reality, I think the module's "fall in the water and die" rule is lame as well. It's save or die. After telling us for years how awful save or die is, WotC has to resort to it to challenge the players.snortI also consider the concept of Intimidating the BBEG into submission to be so stupid that it's nonsensical.</blockquote>

Verification