Vindictive, fair DMing, or is 3.5 too Lethal ??

[Piratecat]

If you got a chance to talk to a simulacrum first, that IS a warning. It's a warning that you're facing someone powerful enough to cast a 7th level spell. If the simulacrum started by talking instead of attacking, that's another big clue -- and if you responded by attacking and destroying the simulacrum, I'd say you might have gotten off easy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Although I think 3Ed/3.5Ed are both more lethal than 1st or 2Ed, I think you were just caught up in the game- you were in a situation where you couldn't win without mass casualties but attacked anyway.

Running or negotiation of some kind were probably better options than fighting.

 

[Christopher Lambert]

After gaming for nearly 25 years I am begining to be disillusioned. I had my character killed last night. As the major fighter (10th level Half Dragon Psionic warrior)

A half-dragon. Templates can help you, or bite you in the rump. They tend to hurt at least two of your saving throws.

I went rushing to the door to block off the enemy from entering the room. I charged to the door. Got my attack in and stood my ground. In front of me were 4 ice golems. Extremely tough as they have an AC 40 or AC 8 and damage resistance 33 (house rule), 2 attacks averaging about 17 points of damage and about 100 hp.

You went up against four powerful creatures? Your wizard should have cast wall of x to block them off.

AC 8 and DR 33... interesting. Since you're a psychic warrior, did you use Deep Impact? Did you take it? If not, it seems you're not familiar with the rules for psionics.

How I have damage resistance 15, so I thought that as I had expanded and was blocking the door I could give the other party members the time to think of how to deal with the Wizard who was behind the ice golems.

Next goes up a Prismatic Wall exactly behind me. The wall goes from floor to ceiling and wall to wall. The Wizard is 16th. Now by reckoning the challengE rating of the ice golems would be about 11. This made the El about 20. If I am wrong please correct me. The party level is from 10-12 averaging at 11th. So the challenge rating is off the scale in the DMG.

With the 16th-level wizard facing you, the EL rises to 17. That's too difficult. Although I have an issue with the "average" party level being 10-12 when one party member is ECL 14.

Not that it made any difference. The Wizards command for his Ice golems was bull rush. The first failed as my expansion and animal affinity gave me strength 30.

You didn't have a Strength-boosting item? I'm just mentioning it because animal affinity and an item don't stack (not in the 3.5 version).

The second rolled 26 on his strength check. I rolled a total of 20. Into the prismatic wall. The save DC was 24. How at 10th level the base saves for a Psionic warrior are +7 Fort, +3 Reflex/Will. With a cloak of protection +4 I was given some chance. Faint. I managed to save against 1 effect, being turned to stone - fortitude.

Ow! Bad luck!

Pretty much instant death. No chance of surrender nor of escape

The DM through the wizard, said the party was foolish and we should have talked.

Maybe you should have talked, but that's not an excuse for using an overly powerful encounter. Mind you, with the power your character had (ECL 14, I believe) I suspect the rest of the party were also using optional rules making them more powerful than they should be. DMs commonly top up encounters by 1-3 or more points if their party seems too powerful. It could just be a miscalculation (and that's a valid excuse).

However, upto this point we hadn't encountered anything that was totally beyond us. When he fisrt stated that we should stop the attack on his cavern it was done through a Simulacrum. There was no knowledge of the power behind the door.The party is pretty much good, my character being LG and the wizard Chaotic evil. He then preceeded to tell the party that he would only deal with the party if it showed more sense in future and fulfilled a task for him. He then let the party leave to complete this task for him.

Springing a boss encounter on the players without some kind of warning is unfair, IMO.

Vindictive??

Maybe. Or it could be a miscalculation.

Do you as DM's kill a party member, by cutting them of from the rest of the group.

Yes. It's called tactics. That's why enemies often target the wizard first, wall up the cleric with wall of x to keep him from healing the party, "focus fire" on a single party member, etc. It's fair if the encounter is something the party can actually deal with.

Then stop the fight and then continue along the plot line you hoped they would follow?

It depends, but probably not.

Vindictive?? That before that a wand of constitution drain (1d6) through ranged touch attack was always aimed at the same party member. (it just happened to be me by the way). I was lucky I only lost 5 Con.

That's not vindictive (picking on the same character... that's smart tactics), assuming this was balanced by a saving throw with a reasonable save DC to avoid the Con damage. However, you shouldn't have to face an uber-hard boss encounter after another difficult encounter.

That I was in the area when the Wizard unleashed a Maximised fireball and quickened fireball. Save DC 21. Total damage 150+. I made both saves this time rolling a 15 and 17. Also I had Fire resistance 30.

Ouch. Well, the save DC doesn't sound too high for a 16th-level wizard, but the encounter, overall, sounded too hard.

Or is this sensible DMing. Making sure that the party is not killed. That the NPC's will go for the biggest creature. Take out the biggest threat. Make sure one member is killed and the party will learn from there mistakes.

Yes, although that encounter was over-the-top.

Maybe I am paranoid. The thing I remember when I DM is to spread the risk. Yes, the beholder if it had sense would target all it's eyes at 1 or 2 people. However, to me this is a world of fantasy and adventure. The party are heroes. However, has 3.5 gone to far. The Ettins are barbarians. At 11th level, I am fighting 17th level barbarians with 7 attacks, raging and doing on average 25 points of damage. Massive damage is common place and characters have to save even if they have got 70+ hit points left. I had a 10th level character if he was maxed out could do 30 points of damage + 13d6 with a huge psi focused dissolving weapon great sword.

I'm not seeing how this is the fault of 3.5. A 3.0 ettin barbarian could also hit you with 7 attacks, raging and doing 25 damage per round, and forcing massive damage saves... and have the same CR. Barbarian is an associated class for ettins, after all.

Everyone in this world seems to be as good as you or better.

A typical encounter is supposed to be easy. Bosses are supposed to be better, however.

There is always a way that the DM can GET YOU. My previous character in this campaign lasted a long time (a few months). He was a Psion who put everything into AC, could reach over 35 if prepared. The DM introduced a Barbed Devil into the campaign as one of the Evil Cleric's henchmen. Barbed devil teleports no error next to Psion.

Did he get Initiative on you as well? I hope he didn't just get 2 actions against you.

Anyway, the DM is supposed to do that. Lure you into overconfidence, watch your defensive strategy, and then shatter it.

Grapple attack, AC irrelevant, squeezed against Barbs on way to death. Saved by party killing him, fortunately. A few rounds later attacked by Cleric 14th + spell. Make save , take 30+ points of dam, go to minuses. Party member takes me round corner. As he does so, Blade barrier in area that I was dropped. No save - death. This was slightly easier to bear as the DM then did a total party kill.

Ouch. Maybe that was reasonable, though. Did you heal after you got squeezed?

There are lots of ways of killing a psion or spellcaster sitting in the back row, however.

My question in amongst the cleansing of my soul is - Am I the only one who thinks that 3.5 has gone to far. You spend longer rolling your character up than playing him/her. Am I romantising about AD&D1, as I had a character that lasted 12 years and it only died once. (Different DM by the way)

This is a problem of 3e, whether 3.0 or 3.5. There are lots of ways in both systems to get killed. Heck, 3.0 was worse with it's haste and harm spells.

Or is that if you have a clued up DM that knows every trick in the book then you persevere with the game and try to avoid getting into any danger?

There's such a thing as a game that's too hard. I see this frequently in low-level campaigns.

 

[takyris]

I disagree with the folks who thought that this was too powerful. Unless this is the very first fight you've ever run into in this campaign, then I think that what happened here was a miscalculation. If I, as the GM, have a monster demonstrate a bunch of power and then try to parley rather than attacking, and the players choose to ignore my guy's diplomatic attempts and attack anyway, then, well, they get what's coming to them. If, as the GM, I say to myself, "Oh, dude, they didn't get my hints and decided to attack the powerful guy I didn't want them to attack -- maybe I should nerf him. And maybe next time I won't make anything in the adventure that they aren't powerful enough to kill," then I'm taking away the chance for the heroes to fail -- and thus, taking away any actual victory from their success.

I don't have the DMG on me, but doesn't it say something like "A small percentage of encounters should be way above the PCs' level, so that they have to flee or parley or seek another means of achieving their goals"? I mean, not in those exact words, but something like? Actually, I just found my DMG from 3.0, and yes, 15% of the encounters should be Very Hard -- someone could die, and 5% should be "Party should run -- seriously."

So... when you saw him cast the bigass magic and then you kept coming, that sorta sealed it.

Also, I'm concerned about the implication that anything you're powerful enough to kill, you should just kill. As a GM, I'd be looking for chances to trip you up if that's the way you approach the game.

 

[warlord]

The level and power of the monster have nothing to do with their ability to kill a party. Have you all forgotten about Tucker's Kobolds?

 

[IronWolf]

I certainly do not see this as an issue with the 3.5 rules. It looks as if the party may have missed some warning signs leading up to the encounter, even if they may have been subtle. Of course I guess hindsight is always 20/20!

 

[Kashell]

If the encounter was impossible, the DM should have had the enemies subdual you.

*#$) happens sometimes, though.

 

[Doctor Shaft]

After reading your story, I couldn't find an ounce of vindictiveness in it. In fact, I kind of thought to myself how silly it was for your high level fighter to decide he would charge the door like he did. I think most of the blame lays in your character's hands and not the DM.

I don't know the DM personally, so maybe you were mislead in someway about what the difficulties in the campaign would be. Maybe you've played with him or her before and have found that most of the campaigns have encounters that you can win all the time. Maybe you discussed it earlier and decided things would be easy to accomplish.

However, you also kind of described so many warning signs about the encounter. I was kind of amazed that you could write these warning signs down but hardly give them consideration. As many people have pointed out, your character had already witnessed at least two major warnings.

1.) Wizard casts high level magic at will.

2.) You're in his super-secret cave complex.

Oh, and I guess there is the third as well.

3.) You knew his alignment out-of-character. Chaotic Evil.

These are just prominent warning signs that a reckless attack will be met with only terrible reaction.

I'm also of the temperment that if the DM isn't willing to off someone for a major mistake, then the game simply isn't worth playing. If my beloved character doesn't run the risk of dying, then his mission and his quest is worth little. Doesn't matter how much I love his concept or his personality. But we're all into different things when it comes to playing the game.

Still, I can't see where the DM was at fault here. Your ECL, as has been pointed out, was already pretty high, and this just seems to be a situation where poor tactics and decisions were made. Thank goodness the DM had the sense to only punish one of the characters and keep the game going. He could have just as easily had the NPC wizard nuke everyone for such a rash move and end the campaign. It's clear he had some control.

One last opinion, if I might add. If your character is a Lawful Good fighter... why did he choose to simply charge a door with a wizard inside. I know this would be a sticky alignment discussion, but is it Lawful Good to shoot first and ask questions later? Especially if the enemy is giving you those warnings like he did? Mind you, I don't know all the details about this particular scenario, so I could be far off in left field questioning that.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

 

[reanjr]

After gaming for nearly 25 years I am begining to be disillusioned. I had my character killed last night. As the major fighter (10th level Half Dragon Psionic warrior) I went rushing to the door to block off the enemy from entering the room. I charged to the door. Got my attack in and stood my ground. In front of me were 4 ice golems. Extremely tough as they have an AC 40 or AC 8 and damage resistance 33 (house rule), 2 attacks averaging about 17 points of damage and about 100 hp. How I have damage resistance 15, so I thought that as I had expanded and was blocking the door I could give the other party members the time to think of how to deal with the Wizard who was behind the ice golems.

Next goes up a Prismatic Wall exactly behind me. The wall goes from floor to ceiling and wall to wall. The Wizard is 16th. Now by reckoning the challengE rating of the ice golems would be about 11. This made the El about 20. If I am wrong please correct me. The party level is from 10-12 averaging at 11th. So the challenge rating is off the scale in the DMG.

From the sounds of it, the party is on the powerful side for their level (or min maxed). Four CR 11 creatures, while a tough encounter, I would not construe as unfair (unless this is after several other challenging encounters). A 16th level wizard may have been a bit off unless your party is more than four characters.

Not that it made any difference. The Wizards command for his Ice golems was bull rush. The first failed as my expansion and animal affinity gave me strength 30. The second rolled 26 on his strength check. I rolled a total of 20. Into the prismatic wall. The save DC was 24. How at 10th level the base saves for a Psionic warrior are +7 Fort, +3 Reflex/Will. With a cloak of protection +4 I was given some chance. Faint. I managed to save against 1 effect, being turned to stone - fortitude.

Pretty much instant death. No chance of surrender nor of escape

Well, that's just smart use of a spell. Maybe you shouldn't have seperated yourself from your party.

The DM through the wizard, said the party was foolish and we should have talked. However, upto this point we hadn't encountered anything that was totally beyond us. When he fisrt stated that we should stop the attack on his cavern it was done through a Simulacrum. There was no knowledge of the power behind the door.The party is pretty much good, my character being LG and the wizard Chaotic evil. He then preceeded to tell the party that he would only deal with the party if it showed more sense in future and fulfilled a task for him. He then let the party leave to complete this task for him.

It's kind of hard to justify complaining that something was too powerful just because you've never encountered anything that powerful before. Maybe you should do less hacking and more planning or recon. Rarely is charging the door without an idea of what's behind a good idea. Not to mention as a LG character, why were you on a murderous rampage? I think the NPC was VERY gracious to not kill the rest of the party after your faux pas.

Vindictive?? Do you as DM's kill a party member, by cutting them of from the rest of the group.

If the NPC has an Intelligence of 18+? Of course. It's common sense. Maybe something the party could do with some more of.

Then stop the fight and then continue along the plot line you hoped they would follow?

I'm not sure of the context, but I don't normally have a plan as DM, so this just isn't my style. Doesn't make it the wrong thing to do, though.

Vindictive?? That before that a wand of constitution drain (1d6) through ranged touch attack was always aimed at the same party member. (it just happened to be me by the way). I was lucky I only lost 5 Con.

I suppose it depends on the NPC's goals. Most of my NPCs would have attacked any feeble wizardly looking fellows as they tend to be most affected when their Con is drained (due to low hp) and they do not have good Fort saves. On the other hand, focusing on a single target also makes sense, whittling down who you see to be a threat, then surgically removing them at the appropriate time.

That I was in the area when the Wizard unleashed a Maximised fireball and quickened fireball. Save DC 21. Total damage 150+. I made both saves this time rolling a 15 and 17. Also I had Fire resistance 30.

Was he supposed to try to avoid you? Did the NPC know you had fire resistance? You couldn't have suffered much damage from that. A 16th level maximised fireball with a successful save only causes 18 points of damage if your have fire resistance 30. The other one probably didn't do anything.

Or is this sensible DMing. Making sure that the party is not killed. That the NPC's will go for the biggest creature. Take out the biggest threat. Make sure one member is killed and the party will learn from there mistakes.

Well, it seems somewhat strange to me that the evil NPC (he is evil, right? or were you going on a murderous rampage for some other reason?) would not kill the rest of the party. But if he had another purpose with them it seems reasonable that he would let the rest go. Also, if the rest of the party quickly became non-agressive after one of their members fell, the NPC may decide that there is no need to kill them. After all, he has shown them his superior strength and probably doesn't feel any real threat from them. Might as well use them for what they're worth.

Maybe I am paranoid. The thing I remember when I DM is to spread the risk. Yes, the beholder if it had sense would target all it's eyes at 1 or 2 people.

Then you might as well remove the Intelligence score from the game as you have made it serve no purpose other than for skill points. You have also taken much away from many of your creatures. If a dragon is just a flying, fire-breathing lizard, then that's how it will appear to the players.

However, to me this is a world of fantasy and adventure. The party are heroes. However, has 3.5 gone to far. The Ettins are barbarians. At 11th level, I am fighting 17th level barbarians with 7 attacks, raging and doing on average 25 points of damage. Massive damage is common place and characters have to save even if they have got 70+ hit points left. I had a 10th level character if he was maxed out could do 30 points of damage + 13d6 with a huge psi focused dissolving weapon great sword.

In my experience, DMs only min/max when their players force them to. Pick feats, etc. that are appropriate for your character rather than those that will make you a powerhouse. The DM will most likely follow suit. And the game will be much more enjoyable for all, as the challenge level is maintained but you are not consumed by number crunching.

Everyone in this world seems to be as good as you or better. There is always a way that the DM can GET YOU. My previous character in this campaign lasted a long time (a few months). He was a Psion who put everything into AC, could reach over 35 if prepared. The DM introduced a Barbed Devil into the campaign as one of the Evil Cleric's henchmen. Barbed devil teleports no error next to Psion. Grapple attack, AC irrelevant, squeezed against Barbs on way to death. Saved by party killing him, fortunately. A few rounds later attacked by Cleric 14th + spell. Make save , take 30+ points of dam, go to minuses. Party member takes me round corner. As he does so, Blade barrier in area that I was dropped. No save - death. This was slightly easier to bear as the DM then did a total party kill.

Again, maybe you should create a character that makes sense and not one that does only one thing really good (like AC in this case). If the DM threw an opponent at you that had an AC of 55, what would the party do? If they're not incompetent, they would do EVERYTHING BUT standard attacks. Grappling, spells, etc.

My question in amongst the cleansing of my soul is - Am I the only one who thinks that 3.5 has gone to far. You spend longer rolling your character up than playing him/her. Am I romantising about AD&D1, as I had a character that lasted 12 years and it only died once. (Different DM by the way)

It sounds more to me like you choose to expend the time doing number crunching. I can roll up a 17th level non-wizard in about 10 minutes no problem. I think of a character personality and background and just make the logical choices, rather than work out all the options in the game to be really powerful. It's irrelevent. Powerful characters get targeted first, anyway (by intelligent enemies, at least).

Or is that if you have a clued up DM that knows every trick in the book then you persevere with the game and try to avoid getting into any danger?

I just play. If my character's choices (they're always the character's choices, never mine) get him killed, then I make a new one (I don't think I've ever had a character killed, actually; but some of them have retired after close calls).

Motivations are hard to surmise even if you take part in the game, so I can't say for sure why your DM killed you. But, in my opinion, it's probably because your character was waaay to focused on one thing and can't handle the situation when it doesn't fit their talents. Try having the DM create a character for you. If the DM just doesn't like your characters, it'll fix that problem. If it's because of the builds you do, it'll fix that as well. If the DM just likes killing your characters, it'll probably fix that as well, since he would probably feel bad taking out a character he built due to guilt on making a crappy character for you.

 

[Kashell]

It's obvious by this thread that it made an impact on you, that's for sure.