D&D 5E [Poll] Hypothetical: Fire Giant difficulty (Combat As War)

[Sunseeker]

Would that feel anticlimactic and unfair, to have your new nemesis suddenly yanked away like that?

No, we chose to leave, which leaves the door open for someone else to claim victory.

 

[OB1]

I think I know the answer to this question but I'm going to ask anyway:

Say you evacuate, and the party goes out into the world seeking that which will allow them to defeat the giants and retake their home... and a couple of weeks later you hear that the giants have moved on and are wrecking other human settlements instead now, and/or have been defeated while trying to do so, and that you can relocate yourself and your subjects back to the wreckage of home with (probably) no further risk, unless the vampire is still there. (Or is the vampire here already among you?!)

Would that feel anticlimactic and unfair, to have your new nemesis suddenly yanked away like that?

I think you'd probably say that it doesn't change anything--you'd send your people home and have them start rebuilding, but you've moved on to a new phase of life and you're determined to acquire the means to make sure nothing like this ever happens again to anyone you care about. But let me know if I'm mistaken.

Hmmmm. Here I would say it might feel anticlimactic if there was nothing I could have done differently to change the outcome. I'm imaganing that if by the time Luke makes it to the Rebel base on Yavin, the Death Star had already been destroyed, audience would not have enjoyed the film quite as much.

If on the other hand, I knew there was a ticking clock, and at some point I had to choose to go back and fight perhaps a bit underprepared (7th level, no sword of killing fire giants) or to take some more time assembling allies but risk that the giant threat had somehow moved on, now I've got an interesting choice as a player. Be a Hero and risk my life in something that may be beyond me, or play it safe and risk the lives of others or someone else getting all the glory and taking all the reward. IE Han Solo thinking the attack on the Death Star was suicide, but deciding in the end to risk everything to help his friends.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hmmmm. Here I would say it might feel anticlimactic if there was nothing I could have done differently to change the outcome. I'm imaganing that if by the time Luke makes it to the Rebel base on Yavin, the Death Star had already been destroyed, audience would not have enjoyed the film quite as much.

If on the other hand, I knew there was a ticking clock, and at some point I had to choose to go back and fight perhaps a bit underprepared (7th level, no sword of killing fire giants) or to take some more time assembling allies but risk that the giant threat had somehow moved on, now I've got an interesting choice as a player. Be a Hero and risk my life in something that may be beyond me, or play it safe and risk the lives of others or someone else getting all the glory and taking all the reward. IE Han Solo thinking the attack on the Death Star was suicide, but deciding in the end to risk everything to help his friends.

Let's say that you know at the outset, because of how the campaign generally works, that there's no guarantee the Fire Giants will stick around for an eventual dramatic showdown. If you choose to evacuate, it's possible that they will leave or by defeated by somebody else. Or they could stick around and become a major menace, maybe build an empire of their own. You're just not sure.

Under those conditions, what level would you have to be for the DM to introduce this scenario and you not think it's unfair? Your initial answer was "3rd level because I'd just bail out and come back at higher level". Does knowing that there are no plot guarantees change that answer?

 

[OB1]

Let's say that you know at the outset, because of how the campaign generally works, that there's no guarantee the Fire Giants will stick around for an eventual dramatic showdown. If you choose to evacuate, it's possible that they will leave or by defeated by somebody else. Or they could stick around and become a major menace, maybe build an empire of their own. You're just not sure.

Under those conditions, what level would you have to be for the DM to introduce this scenario and you not think it's unfair? Your initial answer was "3rd level because I'd just bail out and come back at higher level". Does knowing that there are no plot guarantees change that answer?

Well, I wouldn't necessarily consider it to be "unfair" in any situation, but I might consider it to be uninteresting if there is no meaningful choice to be made by the players. So if staying means certain death and loss of the objective, I'd wonder why the DM had created the scenario in the first place.

To make the scenario interesting, it would of course be highly dependent on the makeup of the individual party, but likely would fall in the 7-13 level range. Anything lower and staying would likely mean certain death, anything higher and it would mean certain victory, and either of which would be uninteresting.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Thanks to all who answered the poll. Summing it up, it looks like this can probably be considered a fair adventure for 3-5 PCs of levels 7-13. People who like playing the underdog can of course have lots of fun knowing that they're playing well above the rated difficulty by tackling this scenario at level 1-3.

 

[Shiroiken]

I would have said 7th, but the vampire variable makes it too iffy. 9th has a good chance of success with proper planning, unless the vampire interferes, then it's a toss up.

I could see this scenario at much lower levels, because success isn't always required for things to be interesting. I would be unlikely to find this unfair at any level, assuming there is a reason WHY it's happening (and not just because the DM's pissy). A good DM will allow even low level PCs to take a few shots at the enemy, probably killing some of the orcs and worgs, then fall back and regroup. A plan to retake the area can then be set up, or the group can work with the consequences of the loss.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I would have said 7th, but the vampire variable makes it too iffy. 9th has a good chance of success with proper planning, unless the vampire interferes, then it's a toss up.

The vampire exists as a forcing function, and to ensure that PCs aren't the only proactive element in the scenario (giants are mostly reactive in the sense that their objective is known and fixed). I learned from Steve Brust's commentary on Yendi that it's always better to have more than one plot going on simultaneously. D&D isn't a novel, of course, but I think it still applies.