What do you think of dying at level 1?

Technik4

First Post
So yesterday my group began a new campaign set in a homebrew campaign. We had 32 point-buy and free license to use just about anything ever published for 3.5 by WotC. I have a bit of a monk fetish but noticed the Ninja class and came up with an interesting concept.

My character was a young houdini, with ranks in Escape Artist, Sleight of Hand, Concentration, and Bluff. I planned on taking 2 levels of Ninja and then taking Sorcerer levels all the way.

My other party members were a Scout planning on taking ranger levels and eventually going into Dervish and a Warlock (all humans).

Anyway, the player playing the Scout and I talked beforehand and agreed our characters would be friends, having worked together in the past conning rich merchants and putting on small shows for peasants. My character was CG, but I didn't know what he was playing.

So we end up on a ship guarding an important man. The ship was attacked and the Scout spent the first 7 rounds hastily donning his armor and making moves to get to the deck of the ship. The warlock began in the fight but ducked down after the fight began, he appeared later and helped fight. My ninja, who could not take Weapon Finesse because of the BAB requirement was fighting with a kukri (+0 to hit) the entire fight. The scout finally came on deck and immediately got knocked down by 2 consecutive attacks. The fight continued and we ended up saving him from the burning ship on a skiff, after defeating the goblins (who succeeded in burning their own ship as well as ours).

We shipwrecked on an island with a church who was cutting down the forest to harvest darkwood. My character organized a meeting with the fey who were fighting the church. The scout did not see enough profit (the church had offered us gold to kill the fey) and did not want to participate. The warlock and I broker a plan to attack the church and steal their adamantine axes which they used to cut down the darkwood. I promise the Warlock he can have the magical necklace the fey are offering as a reward. We tell the scout of the plan, but he still thinks its a bad idea and will not commit to helping us unless a good opportunity presents itself.

Anyway, the fight breaks out and it begins badly for us, with the church guards taking the axes they were guarding with them (meaning we would have to kill them to steal the axes, which we hadn't planned on). We had played some games with the guards and knew they all had breastplate, large shields, and longswords (so an AC of 17-18, which is the main reason the scout thought it was a bad idea to fight). An NPC druid cast entangle for our side and wolves and satyrs began attacking the church. The scout, convinced we would lose the fight chose to fight on the side of the church, and attacked one of the wolves (later he said that it would lend credence to us not being involved in the attack)!

The fight continued and eventually the scout changed over to our side, and immediately afterwards I was hit for 9 points of damage, bringing me to -1 and dying. For the next 9 rounds I failed my stabilization rolls. There were 2 guards in my area, but the scout made double moves and didn't really attack them until halfway through my death when I mentioned he could draw his shortbow. During my last round the warlock activated a wand to try and heal me, but failed his Use Magic Device check. The round after the scout declared he could save me now, but it was too late. He bemoaned that it was a matter of 1 round that led to my death.

Now, he had the best attack bonus, the most hit points, the best armor class, the highest movement rate, and the best damage (especially with skirmish damage). Yet he was not willing to stand and tank because the odds were against him. In the final battle both of the guards in my area were wounded and probably would have gone down with 1 hit because of me and the warlock repeatedly hitting them for low amounts of damage. Rather than charging them, he just made a lot of movement trying to lead the guards away.

Before the game we agreed he would be playing the 'tanking' role. I understand its level 1 and crazy stuff happens at low levels but I attacked with +0 more than he did with +3, with a worse AC, hp, etc. He is simply a passive player, which we attribute to his WoW playing. During the fight the dm let it slip that one of us was Neutral Evil (and the warlock had already mentioned he was Chaotic).

Did the scout do anything wrong? Do I have any reason to be mad at his kiting tactics and general lack of aggression? The dm offered to get me raised but I didn't want to continue mostly because I couldn't see any reason for my character to adventure with such a 'friend' who would constantly disagree about quests and have almost directly opposed alignments, not to mention had shown himself to be a traitor (in my character's eyes).

Right, wrong? What would you do?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Responding to the title: I think dying at level 1 sounds great in theory, but is mostly something that's better when it happens to other people's characters, I find. ;)

Responding to the post: I think it's worth discussing with the other player the whole notion of characters having each others' backs. If he's not interested in that, you should consider a different type of character or perhaps a different game. I'd find your situation deeply frustrating, myself.
 

Well, the problem I see is the Scout not getting on board. Back when I ran a game, I use to tell my players, "This is session #0; session #0 is railroaded, but then everyone has a reason for being together. After this, there will be no more railroading." Now, I should say, I hate railroading, both as a player and as a GM, but I've played enough games where we were just a colleciton of people and not a team and I have to say, doing a railroaded session 0 works very well.

Otherwise, there always seems to be one player who is "just playing their character" and isn't there when you need him because he's being a greedy SOB. IME, that is where the start of group fractures and low group morale begins. So, yes, a railroaded session #0 is something I whole heartedly believe in. If the players know that this and only this alone is railroaded, they respond relatively well.
 
Last edited:

Well, the problem I see is the Scout not getting on board. Back when I ran a game, I use to tell my players, "This is session #0; session #0 is railroaded, but then everyone has a reason for being together. After this, there will be no more railroading."

Our DM would agree with you which is why we began play at sea on a boat all having been paid to act as guards (though the risk of attack seemed low). He said it would be an out-and-out railroad, but that he liked starting with a railroad than the cliche tavern scene where everyone just happens to meet up.

I even mentioned that it would be nice to play a game where all the characters weren't divisive and constantly more concerned with themselves than the party, but it must have fallen on deaf ears.
 





The issue here isn't dying at level 1 (which is very easy to do in D&D). The issue is the lack of party co-operation and do nothing members who don't pull their weight in a fight. The guy playing the scout doesn't know how to play D&D, imo. It's a team game. He can be neutral evil but he's got to be a neutral evil that sticks by his team mates. I think you all need to agree at the start that the PCs will more or less get along and work together.

We had the exact same problem a while back. In a six person party, two players were doing basically nothing in most fights because they thought it wasn't in character. In fact my PC died (at level 2) as a direct result of this. We solved the problem by kicking the two players.
 

why is the question "Did the scout do anything wrong?" instead of "Did anyone do anything wrong?"?
what did you and the warlock do that precludes you from being at fault?

dmccoy1693's session 0 railroad can be a very good idea, but it must be used with the viewpoint of teamwork going both ways.

**the rest of my post is rhetorical and only meant to present thoughts on yours and the warlocks innocence. If you do read it, please be aware that through the internet it probably comes off a lot meaner than i've meant it**

who wasnt being a friend?
why were your characters friends in the first place?

With statements from your post, viewed from the scout's POV, the scout could be asking "Did the ninja and warlock do anything wrong?" You and the warlock picked a fight with a strong enemy, which your friend specifically said he was against, and in hindsight you admit wasnt planned well. You and the warlock decided to do it with or without the scout, and now that it went badly you feel your death was possibly all the scouts fault.

why did the scout switch to your side towards the end of the battle? did the character feel he should switch, or did the player feel he should switch? (my almost 100% unfounded opinion is that the player thought it was more important to save his real-life friends character than to stay in character himself, again, totally a guess by me)
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top