Misery, looking for company

Nail said:
This is the point that would have teed me off.

No listen checks? Ambushing us while we're setting up a non-optimized home base?

Please.

This seems a little quick on the "I take umbrage" response to me. Firstly, why the assumption that the DM didn't use Listen checks? Some DMs may roll secretly for the PCs. And some of us beat 4e to the idea of passive Listen checks, where we just assume every PC is taking 10, and if the NPCs beat that then they're surprised.

And what is it about setting up a "non-optimized home base" (and why are optimized home bases different) that should create immunity to ambushes? It may make sense for enemies to ambush you in the street, at home, while traveling, etc. Or should NPCs never be proactive enough to come after PCs?

I've played Shackled City and the same encounter that the OP is talking about, and what happened seemed to make perfect sense. Of course, we also beat the tar out of the attackers, so that may color my perception a little :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Which we did as well, right after the opening deaths, which I guess is sorta the point. We were not happy campers, and my alignment is taking a shift from CG to CN as I take some sweet sweet revenge.
 

shilsen said:
This seems a little quick on the "I take umbrage" response to me.
Quite possibly. :) I'm responding to what the poster wrote, and I've never played with either his DM, or in the SC adventure path. Lemme try a different tact:

Listen/Spot/Sense Motive reactive checks: I'm all for that, and try to do it IMC. Was it done here? If so, then great. If not, why not?

Ambushing Home Base: The PCs are setting up their Inn. An Inn! It's not as if they've done the optimized thing by picking an underground base, far from others, layered with magical security. (Which is - let's be honest - just asking for the DM to throw monsters at you.) The set-up of the Inn should be encouraged, IMO. If for no other reason than as a great place to throw adventure hooks at the PCs.
 

If the PCs are behind in levels, the DM needs to put in some filler adventures, not proceed as if nothing has happenned.

And Massive Damage just plain sucks.
 

I did sort of jump to the conclusion that there were no listen/spot checks involved...Mainly because I figured the OP would have mentioned something about unlucky reactive rolls along with his other bad rolls. If that is incorrect, then I still suggest killing the massive damage rule. It's crappy.


I am not a fan of spontaneous DM dice rolling. If a DM makes a habit of rolling specific skill checks then that is different. But if I've been rolling my own listen checks for the last 11 levels and suddenly I get hit with an death attack from behind with no roll, I am going to be seriously miffed at the DM when he goes 'I rolled the check for you....you failed'. My initial reaction is that the DM just wanted my character to be shanked. If I survived but took a lot of damage I'd roll with it and keep going. But if I actually had a character get killed from what seemed like DM fiat then I would be very sore about it. IMO DM fiat is called for when it will make the game more fun and interesting....but killing characters is neither fun nor interesting. Of course the danger is there that a character may get killed with an unlucky roll or whatnot, but you arent supposed to die as a result of a DMs direct intervention. 'Rocks fall from the ceiling, everyone roll up new characters' is the extreme example.


I tend to seperate my D&D into 2 categories....role-playing and roll-playing. And I don't tend to mix them together much....If we're in town and we're trying to get a meeting with Billy the powerful political figure, we're going to be in role-play mode. Probably walking around without our armor or weapons, or with them peace-tied or what have you. Basically we're not prepared to get into fights, and our goals are aimed towards the social achievements. If I'm in the lobby of this guys house and one of the bad guys walks in and stabs me, it's going to ruin any future consideration my character might have had for role-playing. Now, I'm always walking around everywhere armed to the teeth, and I stop caring about trying to role-play because I know the DM will just use that as a way to attack me when Im not prepared. It's not a matter of me trusting my DM or not, but an issue of me needing to realize that this particular DM has no qualms with using social setting vulnerabilities against us.

I realize that in the real world, its perfectly realistic for a gang to come shoot up your house if they know where you live. But in the DMD setting it just encourages a hack and slash mentality 24-7 when you screw with the PCs homebase....And apparently it encourages people to buy the stronghold builders guide :)
 

Haffrung Helleyes said:
Yeah, Massive Damage is an optional rule. I've never felt it necessary in 3E to introduce optional rules to make things harder for the PCs.
I can't remember if it was a sidebar rule in 3.0, but it's a standard rule in 3.5.

Of course, any rule is optional if the group agrees on its exclusion.
 

Remove ads

Top