D&D General The Great Railroad Thread

Saruman is also Maia and the ring would be the same for him as it would for Gandalf and Sauron. If the Fellowship died, you still have Elrond, Galadriel, Gildor Inglorion, Glorfindel and others to fight. The elves wouldn't just sit there and die.
Saurman is a Maia, yes.

He is, explicitly, Gandalf's lesser in important ways. Gandalf--Olorin--was the greatest, the wisest, of the Maia assigned to become Istari; he was originally the one chosen to lead the Istari, but Olorin declined, out of self-doubt. (His humility and compassion are the very reason he is the greatest of the Istari, and why he was found suitable by Iluvatar to return to Middle-Earth after the death of his mortal shell when he slew Durin's Bane.) Galadriel wished Gandalf to lead the White Council, but again his humility made him defer, so Saruman was made leader instead.

I am quite certain that Gandalf would have used the Ring with greater proficiency than Saurman, "Curumo", who was already vain and proud in Valinor, and that Saruman was already a weak, fragile ego before he betrayed his loyalties. The Ring would have used Saruman. It would have bonded to Gandalf, had Gandalf been inclined to use it. Because in him, it would have found a master only slightly less powerful than Sauron was before the Ring's creation--but undivided, unlike its original master.

Of course, the very things that make Gandalf Saruman's superior, are also the things which protect him from seeking the Ring and its temptations. But that's one of Tolkien's underlying messages, that those who are truly great, great in spirit and in wisdom, will not accept such horrendous power, while those who would are, inherently, made weaker by their grasping--the very thing which makes them capable of such grasping is also what makes them incapable of ultimate victory.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm pretty sure all of them were 5, any that weren't would have been 4. I've never had a 5e group with 6 or more PCs.


In my experience, the encounter-building rules for 5e are...well. I could voice my full opinion, but it wouldn't be nice. At all. So I'll just say that my experience thereof has been "GMs frequently don't know the difference between encounters that are near-guaranteed TPKs and those that are cakewalks", because every time, the resultant TPK has been followed with (brief) profound confusion about how that ever could have happened.
I kind of agree with you on the encounter building rules, especially in the 2014 version. I do not reference CR at all, I find it both incomprehensible and useless and prefer the XPO calculation method.
I genuinely think (based on my experience) that after third level it should be hard to accidently TPK a party. I have no idea what is going on in your games.
You did say that you warned some of the DMs, what were your warnings and what where the signs that alarmed you?
 

I kind of agree with you on the encounter building rules, especially in the 2014 version. I do not reference CR at all, I find it both incomprehensible and useless and prefer the XPO calculation method.
I wish that that method worked better. It worked extremely well in 4e--not perfect, especially if you used the rules to dynamically scale a monster to a new level--but extremely well in general.

I genuinely think (based on my experience) that after third level it should be hard to accidently TPK a party. I have no idea what is going on in your games.
I mean, the long and short of it is that these GMs presumed PCs functionally took almost no damage, no matter what or how many monsters they faced, and (in at least two cases) presumed that PCs did not really need to rest other than Long Rests.

You did say that you warned some of the DMs, what were your warnings and what where the signs that alarmed you?
The two I knew personally, I attempted to warn very early, as in after like the first session or so, in part because this was very nearly their time GMing any TTRPG ever. (Their very first was a group they were concurrently running games for, had started a couple weeks before my group.) I don't remember the exact words, but it was something to the effect of:

"Hey, I know you're a new GM and such, so I'd just like to note that low level characters in 5th edition can be very, very fragile. That doesn't mean you should coddle folks, but with so many new players and you yourself being a new GM, please try to be careful. The dice can be extremely swingy, which means death is a big risk. You might consider starting us at a higher level, to avoid this problem."

The first GM brushed it off like it was nothing, blithely threw whatever sounded good at the party, and then couldn't understand how our group had TPK'd when his other group had beaten his expectations. I wasn't exactly happy about his kind of brusque dismissal of my concerns, but figured hey, he's the GM, it's his call. The TPK came three encounters later, and the very next encounter after my warning had nearly killed literally every single party member, as in, everyone was down to low single-digit HP with no Hit Dice remaining and my character had a disease that was guaranteed to kill him because he couldn't make the saving throw to survive it. (GM fiat let us survive that first situation, which the GM also found impossible to believe that this group should struggle where his other group didn't.)

I gave essentially the same warning, just augmented with "Hey, remember <Bob>'s game? Yeah this is exactly what killed that game, so please, please be careful, I trust that you have good intentions but I've already seen it go wrong once with a friend of ours." He was not completely dismissive the way the previous GM was, but he was kinda condescending and basically said something equivalent to "don't worry, I'm good for it." We then had a TPK two sessions later when his planned dungeon caused the party to split into two groups which each got wiped out by separate encounters. We didn't have any choice about the party split, it was literally "the floor gives way and two of you fall in" type stuff.

The third warning was to someone who was a stranger to me. I approached it less casually, since I didn't know the GM like I did the previous two, and tried to keep it as circumspect and limited as possible, basically just, "Hey, I've played in two campaigns already that broke down because of a low-level TPK, so I'm really hoping to avoid seeing that again. Please consider how fragile low-level characters are." I was met with an answer so venomous, it bordered on "Shut the hell up or I'm kicking you out of my game." It was not that explicit, but it was definitely said with a threatening edge, an implication of "if you dare question me again, I will kick you out". So I kept my peace, and lo and behold, the exact thing I had tried to warn about happened.

After that, I stopped bothering with any kind of warning. If it doesn't work with friends, and it invites such hostility from strangers, it's not worth risking my neck. Just keep my head down, hope I get lucky. I never did, of course, but I did at least try.
 

Saurman is a Maia, yes.

He is, explicitly, Gandalf's lesser in important ways. Gandalf--Olorin--was the greatest, the wisest, of the Maia assigned to become Istari; he was originally the one chosen to lead the Istari, but Olorin declined, out of self-doubt. (His humility and compassion are the very reason he is the greatest of the Istari, and why he was found suitable by Iluvatar to return to Middle-Earth after the death of his mortal shell when he slew Durin's Bane.) Galadriel wished Gandalf to lead the White Council, but again his humility made him defer, so Saruman was made leader instead.
Wisest, not most powerful. Olorin was asked because he was the wisest of the Istari. Saruman was more powerful than Gandalf when they arrived. Once he was corrupted, Saruman lost power and Gandalf the White was stronger.
I am quite certain that Gandalf would have used the Ring with greater proficiency than Saurman, "Curumo", who was already vain and proud in Valinor, and that Saruman was already a weak, fragile ego before he betrayed his loyalties. The Ring would have used Saruman. It would have bonded to Gandalf, had Gandalf been inclined to use it. Because in him, it would have found a master only slightly less powerful than Sauron was before the Ring's creation--but undivided, unlike its original master.
On the other hand, Saruman and Sauron are both artificers who served Aule the smith. Saruman would have had a greater understanding of the ring than Gandalf, even though Gandalf was wiser. He would have been better able to turn an artifact to his desires than Gandalf.
 

All of these campaigns are from multiple years ago. I no longer have any of the materials for them. Sorry.
Maybe if you start now, you would be able to reach 4th level.
With 2024 rules, Characters are a bit more sturdy at low levels.
Really? Are you really going to stickle over this? I had hoped the meaning would be obvious, but...okay. Fine.

We did not reach level 4. We were already level 4 and more, but gained no further levels. There, are you happy now?

I'm sorry, I just find this insultingly pedantic.
Sorry, was a joke.
I've never seen them used, no. I was under the impression they didn't exist.
Me too. Again. Just a joke.
 

I wish that that method worked better. It worked extremely well in 4e--not perfect, especially if you used the rules to dynamically scale a monster to a new level--but extremely well in general.


I mean, the long and short of it is that these GMs presumed PCs functionally took almost no damage, no matter what or how many monsters they faced, and (in at least two cases) presumed that PCs did not really need to rest other than Long Rests.


The two I knew personally, I attempted to warn very early, as in after like the first session or so, in part because this was very nearly their time GMing any TTRPG ever. (Their very first was a group they were concurrently running games for, had started a couple weeks before my group.) I don't remember the exact words, but it was something to the effect of:

"Hey, I know you're a new GM and such, so I'd just like to note that low level characters in 5th edition can be very, very fragile. That doesn't mean you should coddle folks, but with so many new players and you yourself being a new GM, please try to be careful. The dice can be extremely swingy, which means death is a big risk. You might consider starting us at a higher level, to avoid this problem."

The first GM brushed it off like it was nothing, blithely threw whatever sounded good at the party, and then couldn't understand how our group had TPK'd when his other group had beaten his expectations. I wasn't exactly happy about his kind of brusque dismissal of my concerns, but figured hey, he's the GM, it's his call. The TPK came three encounters later, and the very next encounter after my warning had nearly killed literally every single party member, as in, everyone was down to low single-digit HP with no Hit Dice remaining and my character had a disease that was guaranteed to kill him because he couldn't make the saving throw to survive it. (GM fiat let us survive that first situation, which the GM also found impossible to believe that this group should struggle where his other group didn't.)

I gave essentially the same warning, just augmented with "Hey, remember <Bob>'s game? Yeah this is exactly what killed that game, so please, please be careful, I trust that you have good intentions but I've already seen it go wrong once with a friend of ours." He was not completely dismissive the way the previous GM was, but he was kinda condescending and basically said something equivalent to "don't worry, I'm good for it." We then had a TPK two sessions later when his planned dungeon caused the party to split into two groups which each got wiped out by separate encounters. We didn't have any choice about the party split, it was literally "the floor gives way and two of you fall in" type stuff.

The third warning was to someone who was a stranger to me. I approached it less casually, since I didn't know the GM like I did the previous two, and tried to keep it as circumspect and limited as possible, basically just, "Hey, I've played in two campaigns already that broke down because of a low-level TPK, so I'm really hoping to avoid seeing that again. Please consider how fragile low-level characters are." I was met with an answer so venomous, it bordered on "Shut the hell up or I'm kicking you out of my game." It was not that explicit, but it was definitely said with a threatening edge, an implication of "if you dare question me again, I will kick you out". So I kept my peace, and lo and behold, the exact thing I had tried to warn about happened.

After that, I stopped bothering with any kind of warning. If it doesn't work with friends, and it invites such hostility from strangers, it's not worth risking my neck. Just keep my head down, hope I get lucky. I never did, of course, but I did at least try.
That is really unfortunate, I hope you have better luck in the future.
 


Maybe if you start now, you would be able to reach 4th level.
Other than Hussar's games, I have no interest in playing 5e ever again.

Quintice bitten, hexice shy. Or would that be "Fice bitten, sice shy"? Hmm...

With 2024 rules, Characters are a bit more sturdy at low levels.
Could not possibly care less, other than for reasons that would just be me rehashing old arguments that aren't worth dredging up.

Sorry, was a joke.

Me too. Again. Just a joke.
Ah, pardon. I'm in a bit of a foul mood today, did not sleep despite taking meds to make me do so and genuinely giving it my all. Probably the heat. Regardless, I should have been more gracious, so I apologize for my negativity.
 

Other than Hussar's games, I have no interest in playing 5e ever again.

Quintice bitten, hexice shy.


Could not possibly care less, other than for reasons that would just be me rehashing old arguments that aren't worth dredging up.


Ah, pardon. I'm in a bit of a foul mood today, did not sleep despite taking meds to make me do so and genuinely giving it my all. Probably the heat. Regardless, I should have been more gracious, so I apologize for my negativity.
No, I am sorry. Should have used emoticons to confer the joke better.

Hope you find sleep soon.
 


Remove ads

Top