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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zuche" data-source="post: 5755867" data-attributes="member: 6682151">If a party's method of avoiding attacks leaves their ship inadequately protected, they should face the consequences of their actions. This isn't day care. You're old enough to be aware of what happens to ships caught in the tentacles of a sea monster. In movies, what keeps that sort of thing from happening? Characters engage the sea monster. If they don't, it's nearly always all hands lost at sea. Now either you play action hero, or you live with the consequences.Please stop attacking the straw man; my argument is over here. If you posted one or two players below decks, or running back and forth across the hold to fight, great! If they keep switching off with people above the deck, even better. That's a fine use of the terrain, that is. On the other hand, if you try to do this with your entire crew, the ship becomes the obvious target for the kraken.If one round of hearing the sea monster (and possibly the sahuagin) tear into your ship doesn't clue your party into the danger they're facing, and they do nothing to counter this in the next round, congratulate them on a well-earned TPK.No? As a 3.5 argument, the readied action severely limited the options open to the one preparing it, while leaving the other party free to take other actions. Turning an enemy's blast into a single target attack with a 50% chance of not even having that target (assuming tentacles guarding both sets of stairs) sounds exactly like what you described for 3.5.It's a bit like one of Dark Sun's silt horrors, only without a theoretically endless supply of minion tentacles. Playing those tentacles as monsters in an encounter that don't feature the silt horror itself has been on the book two and a half years now. It's nothing new. Both Star Wars and Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea featured this sort of fight.I've already addressed the precedent for tentacles as separate monsters. Your claim that they could only be damaged is incorrect. You couldn't pull them onto the ship, and you couldn't blind them. That's it as far as limitations go.As for "breaking the rules" in LA1, good! Where a primordial is concerned, the rules should break down. Both of the changes you described were consistent with what I'd expect from dealing with something like that, something that should have the player characters wetting their pants in terror. Something that can warp space between planes like that sounds just right. As for the reduction in fire immunity, you can already build something similar into PCs.The designers could have accomplished the same result by having a random PC spontaneously combust every few rounds. That would also have been consistent with the terms of the scenario. Unfair, sure, but it's good to show some perspective about these things. You've read the mechanics for blindsight, a feature I'd expect to find in a creature from the depths of the ocean. The ability has always allowed its possessors to distinguish between enemies and allies.Maybe so. We're not machines, and neither game designers nor players should expect us to act as such.I'm not here to hold players' hands. I'm here to challenge them.Falling into the water was instant death, but the possibility of losing your ship in two to three rounds because you stubbornly clung to a single tactic is unfair? It's hard to take that argument seriously.Because an experienced DM, after reviewing the adventure, would either have looked them up or already had them memorized. There's a reason that getting the DM to consult the rulebooks was listed as a glory award this time.This low standard you have for DMs makes me suspect the one you set for strong players.Again, falling in the water was instant death. It's even written on your glory awards card.Not at all. Thirty years of experience with players tells me they'd try the exact same thing if they were the sahuagin. I notice you didn't address that point.I'm perfectly willing to see that cowering in the hold was not the only method of holding your own on deck. I have agreed that access to the hold was a useful resource.I have pointed out the flaw in your strategy when applied to the point of putting all your eggs in one basket, and you've all but called me a petty cheater for using the resources available. Why should I be impressed? Oh, no. I'll happily roll the attacks and damage against the ship out in the open, just as I've done for attacks against the players. On average, it's enough to last two to three rounds. If I happen to roll nothing but ones on the first round of attacks, so be it.And in a campaign, they're right. In a campaign, I'd gladly settle for poking holes in the ship and having the sahuagin focus more on trying to find the Talon than on trying to kill those holding onto it. In a campaign, falling into the water would not mean instant death. In a campaign, I'd be happy to make a lot of changes, especially for players willing to take real chances, regardless of the odds.At a Lair Assault table, however, I'm more than happy with save or die. I know players who continue to strive for that sort of thing against their opponents, so a little turnabout is a good thing. It's not that hard to avoid forced movement.When characters in a movie or book fight a sea monster, those that get knocked into the water die. That's part of the fun of seeing a sea monster on the screen. I want to see that played for all it's worth in a one shot, because that's what a perilous adventure is all about. This also shows a remarkable lack of vision.</blockquote>

Verification