I killed a character, twice!

[Aegeri]

This is really a bad suggestion.

Not really, it resolves the problem straight away and easily, there is no actual obligation to make a saving throw in this case. The encounter is designed poorly, but the result doesn't have to be equally as poor in this situation.

If a PC doing very well causes her to get killed then the DM is 100% at fault.

Succeeding at a few 50/50 saving throws while being beat senseless by monsters is not "doing very well".

It would've been MUCH better for the bad guys to say, "We can't kill this one, let's get out of here!" and flee.

This fails to make any sense whatsoever considering they easily dominated the PC in question and then just used her as a trivial punching bag. Why on earth would 5 (presumably one is removed from play dominating her) run from a single target they have almost complete control over and surround utterly? Noting that the incubus, as mentioned is one of the more hardcore late heroic monsters as well. I mean they can absolutely shred a lightly armed striker like this to pieces in the right situation.

There's no way that the player should be so severely punished for doing so well

We have absolutely different definitions of "doing well". My definition is not "hanging on for dear life in a 1 vs. 4 fight and then getting the tar beaten out of you while dominated" myself.

and suggesting that she just lay down and completely ignore the fact that you're asking her to jump off a 100ft cliff to save her life is ridiculous.

Face four horrible daemons that can dominate her and use her as a puppet, that have the immediate goal of just throwing her off the tower (note make sure to read post #4, which is from the OP detailing that in fact, she was absolutely screwed and not "winning" by any definition).

Or.

Face a 100ft drop and being relatively hardcore have a chance of potentially surviving it, as opposed to zero when they knock me firmly into negative bloodied and toss me off.

I mean, both options are horrible but one is far worse than the other. Especially when these creatures are almost certainly going to easily chain dominate her to prevent her doing anything to them. I also think by that point the monsters had "won" and being thrown off would have been far more thematic than standing ground and being beaten utterly senseless. But again, we have incredibly different working definitions of what constitutes "doing very well" I must say I do completely see your point though, but this was an encounter that was really stacked against the PCs in both creature types and tactically (with the ledges). In the end when the creatures have technically killed 3/4 party members (by dropping them off the roof) the last PC is not in a winning position - especially when that PC is easily chain dominated so the other creatures can just continue whacking on her. Plus they get a not insignificant damage bonus against PCs they have dominated before too.

Edit:

5 monsters vs. 4 PCs, are you sure you have the right XP level?

They are level 10 and the Incubus is a level 9 Lurker. So it's not quite as expensive as 5 level 10 monsters, but then again sometimes level isn't a complete indication of how brutal a monster will be in play. The Incubus has a lot of stuff going for him.

Edit2:

I just want to pull this out and fully detail the sequence of events here:

There's no way that the player should be so severely punished for doing so well and suggesting that she just lay down and completely ignore the fact that you're asking her to jump off a 100ft cliff to save her life is ridiculous.

This is the sequence of events you claim is doing very well:

Round 1:
2 vs. 1.
PC is clawed
PC is dominated
Makes save against the fall
Makes save against the dominate

Round 2:
PC is dominated
Another incubus knocks the other PC off - now 3 vs. 1
Bull rush - Saved
Makes save against the fall
Saves against the dominate

Round 3:
Fourth Incubus Joins
PC is dominated
Two claws (dropped unconscious)
Bull rushed - fails save
Dies from fall damage.

In no where in any of that is the sentence "doing very well" applicable. Well except to saving throws! But sadly saving throws aren't convincing monsters that you're scary, especially when they keep jerking control back and this is actually the precise situation the creatures want. The more she saves against the dominate and gets dominated by a NEW incubus the worse she is actually doing. The best option was to run (albeit, not an option due to being dominated) or voluntarily fall down while she had the most HP available - rather than getting beat down.

Note this doesn't change the completely valid point we've already concluded that the encounter wasn't great to begin with, but her death wasn't guaranteed if they used it as a method of retreating. Never surrender and never running from a fight you are clearly losing - regardless of how well/poorly designed it was isn't a good idea either

 

[Herschel]

Why were they throwing themselves off the ledge in the first place? Dominate =/= suicidal. The survival instinct is too strong. This has been discussed ad nauseum since the original red box days. It's against your nature to attack your allies so you only get basic-type attacks and you don't unload your nifty powers so why would you try to kill yourself?

The second encounter design was bad. You weren't singling her out, in my opinion, but you were positioning for multiple kills.

 

[Aegeri]

Why were they throwing themselves off the ledge in the first place? Dominate =/= suicidal.

You can do this while dominated.

If the dominator tries to force the creature to throw itself into a pit or move into some other form of hindering terrain, the creature gets a saving throw to avoid entering the terrain.

So the rules do allow this.

Noting that in this case, it's worth noting this probably prevented a total TPK because it meant the PCs wasted numerous rounds making saving throws. If you read the OP and his follow up post, if the creatures had actually used their dominates to attack other PCs this would have been a flat out TPK easily. It sounds like the PCs spent a lot of time dominated. This is where as a DM you have to stand up and admit you made something wrong. Personally, I don't think anything should be "reconned" as that's just not good for the game in general. What he should do is show an understanding of what happened and just learn from it and move on, make the next encounters a lot less "deadly" but put the fun back in. Nothing makes PCs feel happier after a couple of awful encounters than some fun battles that don't horrifically murder than and remind them their characters are bad assess. Not ragdolls.

 

[MrMyth]

Infiniti2000 has hit on all the major issues. Were you gunning for her specifically? No, not really. But that's some seriously poor encounter design there. A fight where it is trivial for the enemy to remove PCs from the encounter, where every enemy has ongoing dominate... yeah, absolutely abysmal, and definitely the DM's fault.

 

[Riastlin]

This is a tough one honestly. First though, I would point out that the falling damage would actually be 10d10, not 10d6 since its 4th Ed. So in a way, you did fudge in the second encounter.

Starting with the first encounter, I don't have a problem really with the monsters focus-firing on an apparent weeble-wobble -- provided of course that the monsters in question are intelligent enough to recognize it. Mindless zombies for instance will not focus-fire (though one might continue to chew on the unconscious character). The issue of course is that had you been using the regen rules differently, she probably would have stayed down, thus eliminating the focus-fire effect. Personally, I chalk this up to "mistakes happen". Unfortunately, none of us are perfect and we will make mistakes. After realizing the mistake, I would probably allow a "free" raise dead -- i.e. no raise sickness (no penalties to attack, etc.). After all, the mistaken ruling lead, in part, to the death -- though there is no guarantee she would not have failed three death saves as I've seen a party fail 5 in a row.

As for the second encounter, yeah this one was pretty brutal. 5 dominators plus a large fall usually add up to problems for the PCs. That being said, I don't have a problem with the unconscious PC being kicked off the ledge, in fact I think that a little brutality on the part of the monsters is sometimes a good thing as it gives the PCs a sense of mortality. With regard to fudging the die rolls though, as I stated already you kinda did anyway. Even without that though, I'm not a big fan of fudging die rolls. It just causes the players to rely on the DM to pull them out of the fire too often. The only time I might fudge a die roll is if an encounter turned out to be a lot more difficult than I intended (which ironically, appears to have been the case here).

In the end, talk to the player and try to smooth it out. Let her PC come back but also explain where you were coming from. In the end you both can probably use it as a learning experience.

 

[Aegeri]

I forgot to ask the OP: How long have you been DMing 4E for, as it seems this boils down a lot to general inexperience with 4E as a system and how it works.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is the sequence of events you claim is doing very well:

Round 1:
2 vs. 1.
PC is clawed
PC is dominated
Makes save against the fall
Makes save against the dominate

Round 2:
PC is dominated
Another incubus knocks the other PC off - now 3 vs. 1
Bull rush - Saved
Makes save against the fall
Saves against the dominate

Round 3:
Fourth Incubus Joins
PC is dominated
Two claws (dropped unconscious)
Bull rushed - fails save
Dies from fall damage.

In no where in any of that is the sentence "doing very well" applicable.

Are you serious? If this was a movie, we would have seen her try to get mentally controlled several times and been able to shake it off. We also would have seen her get pushed, thrown, or forced to go over a tall edifice, but somehow by the grace of the gods, the character is able to hang on for dear life... grabbing the lip of the tower and pulling herself back up to safety. She was the last one left! She survived everything they threw at her until the very end! From a descriptive stand-point, of course she was doing well!

To then have her of all people be the one who finally drops from the 100 foot tower and then die upon the rocks below is what really sucks. Because she probably had much fewer hit points then the others did when she eventually fell, she's the one who managed to drop to negative bloodied and get insta-ganked.

I think you're looking at things purely from the game mechanics point of view, where we can metagame and say "well at 100 feet, that's only 10d10 damage, averaging out to about 55 damage or so from the fall, thus since my PC has more than that, the best option is to throw myself from the edge and suck up the damage when I land..." But forgetting the fact that this entails a human being throwing themselves off of a 10-story building voluntarily, rather than put up a fight against some monsters. I dunno about you... but with all the complaints people have about verisimilitude in 4E... this is one time when it should definitely apply.

 

[Riastlin]

• Intentional killing (twice) - although not a true violation of the rules, the guidelines recommend against this, and now you know why. Is it more important to play monsters "correctly" or have fun? Of course, this assumes that in this case playing "correctly" != having fun (though it might for some people and that's fine for them, but it obviously doesn't for this player)

This is, admittedly, quite open to debate and varies from group to group. Many groups much prefer that the monsters play realistically rather than engaging in the "James Bond-esque" masquerade of capturing the PCs just so that they can then let them escape. More to the point, there needs to be a sense of danger, a sense that you really can die. If the monsters always keep one hand behind their back and never actually kill anything it no only is non-sensical, it makes the game less fun for many. The thrill in the game comes from knowing you were on the brink of death, yet pulled it out anyway. If you are never on the brink of death though you might as well just collectively tell a story and throw away the dice.

As an example, when my Scales of War group saw 3 of the 5 PCs die in one encounter a) the other two were smart enough to run away (though not exactly an option in the OP's case) and b) the 3 who died were perfectly fine with it and said afterward they were "glad" they died as capture would have made no sense in that particular instance.

Now we do still all agree that the encounter in question was troublesome, but any DM who claims not to have made a bad encounter is either a) lying, b) oblivious or c) so inexperienced as to not have had many chances. Mistakes happen. When they do, its up to everyone at the table to try to rectify them. Sometimes that means the PCs need to run away (there's no rule that says they must win every fight after all). Sometimes the DM needs to step in. In this case, I think Aegeri is right, the PC would have been better off failing the save (or simply not taking it). Staying on the ledge at that point was suicidal given the design of the encounter. Now, its quite likely that the thought of purposefully not saving never crossed the minds of anyone at the table, but here the OP (and hopefully his player) have learned something and now have something else to consider the next time something like this comes up.

As I said previously though, given the problems that are evident, I would allow the PC to come back, without the sickness and chalk it up as a learning experience for everyone. To smooth matters out even more, the DM could/should even own up to the mistake and tell the players that he made a mistake in that encounter. All that being said though, PC death does, and frankly should, happen from time to time.

 

[Aegeri]

But forgetting the fact that this entails a human being throwing themselves off of a 10-story building voluntarily,

Remind me what is "voluntary" about the dominate condition again?

The point is there is an equally good explanation as to why choosing not to take the saving throw would be valid in the same situation described. Mental fatigue plus the sheer fear of being out numbered by daemons that get into your head and do horrible things to your mind. There are equally good explanations for not taking the saving throws as there are for doing so.

Just to comment on some other things:

grabbing the lip of the tower and pulling herself back up to safety. She was the last one left! She survived everything they threw at her until the very end

Bearing in mind that the other ally was thrown off in round 2 there, with her following immediately after it's not the most glorious of final stands. By herself she lasted a single round vs. the four (technically five, one was dominating her and was therefore removed from play). Also technically, if you read the fluff on the incubus that's just going to excite them into a murderous frenzy, not intimidate them in any manner (see bloodied invigoration).

To then have her of all people be the one who finally drops from the 100 foot tower and then die upon the rocks below is what really sucks.

The round immediately after the other remaining ally went down. We aren't talking about her surviving 5+ rounds against 4 creatures, it was instant and very definitive once it came down to that situation you realize. You also have to bear in mind from a "fluff" point of view, once an incubus gets into your head it makes them more ferocious, vicious and lusting for your blood even more. This is represented mechanically by a pretty solid damage bonus to attacks against creatures they have dominated in a combat. So being torn apart and unceremoniously dumped was just going to happen.

If I had to make a prediction, the two that bothered with claw attacks BOTH had dominated her on previous rounds and so had the damage bonus to their attacks as well.

I think you're looking at things purely from the game mechanics point of view

This is not an invalid way of looking at things and just so you know, I can just as easily justify it from a narrative point of view as well. It also wasn't 10d10 damage, he'd ruled it at 10d6, which is a bit different.

Edit: I'd like to point out, in this situation that saving the dominate is the worst possible thing to do, because each Incubus gains +5 attack AND damage against you (if he's bloodied). So in short, whenever you save you are killing yourself. Each one that dominated will have +19 vs. AC and 3d8+9 damage with their claw attack (and will grab you to boot). At level 9, that's not an insignificant amount of damage or an attack bonus that you should sneeze at. So bear in mind when describing the "desperate" struggle to stay on being heroic, all it's doing is whipping the creatures up into a frenzy of killing that makes them much better at attempting to do utterly terrible things to you (assuming they are bloodied).

Edit2: But this is rather missing the point overall, as I think the consensus by now is that the encounter was not a very good one and had more than a few flaws. The "what do we do about it" is the more important one, particularly in learning from what went wrong with the encounter design. Five creatures that dominate and have been strong regular attacks, combined with a large drop would be a good starting point. Bearing in mind the OPs original question was if he was picking on the player in question. I feel that's clearly not the case because his description indicates it was dumb luck that resulted in the player being the last one on the roof and then being torn up by the creatures and tossed off. How that was handled was not very good, but the whole "Was he deliberately picking on the player" doesn't seem to be the case. To me anyway.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Let me put on my DM hat for a moment

1. Nothing wrong with killing PCs. Adventuring is deadly.
2. Nothing wrong with throwing hard encounters at the party. They failed a skill challenge and elected to go toe-to-toe with the bad guys. The party could have just as easily backed off and tried a new plan. Instead, they elected to fight.
3. Nothing wrong with making mistakes with the rules. It happens and it looks like you tried to error on the side of the PCs (more then fair).
4. Nothing here fails the "what would I as a PC do" test. If a monster kept standing up after I knocked it down, I'd use a coup de grâce to kill it (did you know that coup de grâce means mercy blow in french, thanks Wikipedia). If it was my PC's goal to keep some monsters from disturbing my 100 foot tall fortress (and I was playing an evil PC), I might throw an unconscious monster off of it as an example.

If this had been my game, I'd have felt no qualms about the PC dying twice. The party failed as a whole, but the most obvious example of that failure was the death of the PC. Instead of getting upset at a GM, the players should have a look at why they collectively failed.

1. Where was the leader when a party member was in obvious need of help. If someone goes down in one of our games, a great effort is made to get them back up.
2. Did the PC attempt to use any second winds or healing potions after regaining consciousness from the regen. Did the PC consider "playing dead" or did they stand up and heroicly confront the enemies again.
3. Where was the defender. Part of the defender's job is to protect fallen allies as well.
4. Why did no one on the ground say "let's catch our falling friend." I'd have allowed some sort of heroic effort to save the falling PC, if someone had thought of it.

I'd stand by your choices and challenge the players to be better adventures.