What is it with these modules on the internet?

[KarinsDad]

I'll just have to say KD, that it's funny to watch when someone, who in other posts blasts his players for metagame thinking in drawing out AoO's before spellcatsing, has this to say when he's a player in someone elses game:

Your statement reeks of metagame thinking by a player. You are as guilty of it while playing as you accuse your players to be when you DM. Shame on you!

Pointing fingers Zenon? Shame on you!

The DM told us how this creature was acting. It attacked whomever attacked it last. If nobody attacked it last, it attacked the closest creature. It stacked the "bodies" neatly in a corner and went back to its room without following us down the stairs, even though it was faster than my dwarf.

So yes, I knew it was a Flesh Golem. It was probably a mistake of the DM to say "a Flesh Golem comes out and attacks" (unless he wanted us to have knowledge about it).

I have been trying to get him to say things like "an 8 foot tall creature, somewhat human looking, comes out and attacks", but he's a new DM, so he slips a lot.

Basically though, that's mostly irrelevant. Most humanoid creatures would have a tough time getting at the Cleric with her standing on the platform and attacking with a reach weapon. The creature had no weapons, so it seemed a good tactic regardless. One where it could not reach her, but she could reach it if it came close. Yes, an intelligent humanoid creature could have stayed away and thrown objects at her, but as described, this creature was acting in a "programmed manner".

So, I did not think it too outside the realm of my 17 Intelligence Illusionist with 7 total in Knowledge Arcana to figure out that it was a Golem and have some basic knowledge of how a Golem works. It appeared that the DM thought we knew about Golems since he said it right away.

But evidently, you think that intelligent PCs should have no knowledge of the creatures in their world, even after the DM tells them what it is. YMMV.

 

[Mark]

Pointing fingers Zenon? Shame on you!

The DM told us how this creature was acting. It attacked whomever attacked it last. If nobody attacked it last, it attacked the closest creature. It stacked the "bodies" neatly in a corner and went back to its room without following us down the stairs, even though it was faster than my dwarf.

So yes, I knew it was a Flesh Golem. It was probably a mistake of the DM to say "a Flesh Golem comes out and attacks" (unless he wanted us to have knowledge about it).

I have been trying to get him to say things like "an 8 foot tall creature, somewhat human looking, comes out and attacks", but he's a new DM, so he slips a lot.

Basically though, that's mostly irrelevant. Most humanoid creatures would have a tough time getting at the Cleric with her standing on the platform and attacking with a reach weapon. The creature had no weapons, so it seemed a good tactic regardless. One where it could not reach her, but she could reach it if it came close. Yes, an intelligent humanoid creature could have stayed away and thrown objects at her, but as described, this creature was acting in a "programmed manner".

So, I did not think it too outside the realm of my 17 Intelligence Illusionist with 7 total in Knowledge Arcana to figure out that it was a Golem and have some basic knowledge of how a Golem works. It appeared that the DM thought we knew about Golems since he said it right away.

But evidently, you think that intelligent PCs should have no knowledge of the creatures in their world, even after the DM tells them what it is. YMMV.

I would have required a knowledge check with a penalty for being inexperienced (figuring most of your studies were in areas you practice).

I liked your plan, KD.

Nevertheless, I'm also guessing you didn't read the module, since you never mentioned exact knowledge of the reduction of Golem powers. Yet the subject line of the thread, and the accusations you made right out of the box, were that the module was at fault. I think that made some people rush to its defense, and not side with you on your tactics.

The DMG suugests that an EL a couple of numbers higher than the party is difficult. The module writers included an appropriate "fair warning" and it was the final encounter (it's not like you all died in the first five minutes.) The players all reacted in-character, albeit with some mistakes being made (button pushing is not something to take lightly and it cost you initiative and readiness.)

Seems to me one problem, and you mentioned it quite a bit, was adding the house rule. In the long term, fumble rules will bring down PCs and creatures alike, but creatures are plentiful. It also sounds to me like you pushed your limits, rolled the dice, and they simply didn't turn up to your favor. For the record, I would have had the "mindless" Flesh Golem attempt to grab the thing poking him, as someone else pointed out. It, in essence, became the closest enemy when the Cleric was out of reach.

I really don't see that there is any real blame to be placed on the players, DM or the module. Certainly it was a bad break but you made a good run at it!

 

[Henry@home]

No plan, even one to rest up and regain spells is ALWAYS the best plan.

No offense meant, KD, but when you are already damaged by combat to the point where one fight can reasonably take you out, then finding a defensible spot and resting is ALWAYS a good idea, even before you met the golem.

I loved a piece of advice in the Lew Pulsipher articles from Dragon #74, "Be aware, take care." The advice was If in the middle of the adventure and you are in hostile territory and wondering when to rest, always assume you will have to fight at least one combat before you can get to a safe rest stop.

Even though I haven't followed this advice all the time, it has proven its veracity every darned time that I didn't follow it.

 

[Zenon]

Pointing fingers Zenon? Shame on you!

The DM told us how this creature was acting. It attacked whomever attacked it last. If nobody attacked it last, it attacked the closest creature. It stacked the "bodies" neatly in a corner and went back to its room without following us down the stairs, even though it was faster than my dwarf.

So yes, I knew it was a Flesh Golem. It was probably a mistake of the DM to say "a Flesh Golem comes out and attacks" (unless he wanted us to have knowledge about it).

I have been trying to get him to say things like "an 8 foot tall creature, somewhat human looking, comes out and attacks", but he's a new DM, so he slips a lot.

Basically though, that's mostly irrelevant. Most humanoid creatures would have a tough time getting at the Cleric with her standing on the platform and attacking with a reach weapon. The creature had no weapons, so it seemed a good tactic regardless. One where it could not reach her, but she could reach it if it came close. Yes, an intelligent humanoid creature could have stayed away and thrown objects at her, but as described, this creature was acting in a "programmed manner".

So, I did not think it too outside the realm of my 17 Intelligence Illusionist with 7 total in Knowledge Arcana to figure out that it was a Golem and have some basic knowledge of how a Golem works. It appeared that the DM thought we knew about Golems since he said it right away.

But evidently, you think that intelligent PCs should have no knowledge of the creatures in their world, even after the DM tells them what it is. YMMV.

Just pokin' a little fun at you

Seriously, your plan wasn't bad. Improvisation is something that we all forget about sometimes as players, and that we don't let happen as DM's because "that's not in the rules!". Creative gaming by players (within reason) should always be looked upon favorably by the DM and rewarded in some manner (nothing large, just a little something to show you saw it).

New DM's are tough sometimes, especially if their players have more experience than they do! You best bet is to meet up with him outside the game and give him a non-biased, helpful review of his session (note: this should be handled tactfully so it doesn't sound like you're telling him how to run his game!). You can go over things like "I like the way you played the flesh golem as mindless by having him stack the bodies and ignore us while he did it, but you probably shouldn't have told us that it was a flesh golem. It might have been better if you just described it in detail." and then go on the explain why.

Is you new DM a long time player, or is he new to the game in general?

 

[D'karr]

Bad Tactics

I really don't see what the fuss is about.

The module clearly states that the golem is a challenge that is very tough.

The PC's tactics were bad. Yes, they were justifiable as revenge but they were still bad.

Confederate Generals and Union Generals made bad tactical decisions many times. They payed dearly for them too. That did not make them stupid, even though some of their tactics were very stupid.

Any combat action cannot be sustained indefinitely, even if you are winning. Even Sun Tzu many centuries ago wrote about this.

If you've been playing for so long I have three words that might bring this back to earth, "Caves of Chaos"

Man, did a crapload of PCs die there because of bad tactics. None of the challenges there were that tough (Kobolds, Goblins, Orcs). But man when you combined just sheer numbers and played those suckers smartly, the PCs were just waiting to die. Sitting back and recovering is always the best plan. Specially when you've just gotten a buttkicking.

Now, hopefully the PCs will learn their lesson and next time maybe they will be more level headed / cautious. Letting emotions such as revenge take a hold of your PC are okay, but then you have to accept the consequences.

 

[Junkheap]

geez

I personally see no problem with PC's getting their butt kicked once in a while. It reminds them that there are things out there that are more powerfull than them, and some things should not be messed with. Some adventures are just plain tough, too tough. If you want an expample, play rappak atthan(sp?). We are playing that one right now and let me tell you it is VERY VERY DEADLY! Too deadly infact you wonder why the heck would anyone even want to come close to this place and even try to survive. But you know what, its fun. It shows us that we can't win every fight. It makes it more entertaining that way.

 

[KarinsDad]

No offense meant, KD, but when you are already damaged by combat to the point where one fight can reasonably take you out, then finding a defensible spot and resting is ALWAYS a good idea, even before you met the golem.

Actually, we were planning on resting before meeting the golem. We were seriously low on spells and many PCs were damaged.

But, I think the reason the Ranger hit the button is that we were at the top level of the tower. Nowhere left to go and we had just killed the three fire zombies there. He didn't tell me this, but I think he thought the tower was over as far as monsters were concerned and he was looking for treasure, not another fight.

As for being fully rested up, I think people forget that even fully healed and with full spells, we would have gotten our butts handed to us in that first battle. It’s next to impossible to anticipate that type of battle where you must have specific spells, or you cannot really damage the creature enough before it lays waste to the party. Even fully rested, I cannot see any way that we could have taken on the Golem without knowing it was there ahead of time without losing at least a PC. Knowing it’s there, that’s a different story.

And like I said, the second battle looked like a slam dunk. If I would have not come up with the plan for the "magical spear", we absolutely would have rested. But, we let our emotions get the better of us when a “full proof” plan came up. It's kind of like a chess game (for those who have played in tournament chess) where it is almost time for an adjournment and your move looks so obvious that instead of taking the last few minutes on the clock and double checking it and sealing it, you instead make it. Suddenly, you realize that it was not so good after all.

The same happened with the second battle. It looked like we could not lose according to the rules (or at least that the risk was extremely low), so we just went and did it. Oh well.

I really don't see what the fuss is about.

The module clearly states that the golem is a challenge that is very tough.

People keep posting that the module warned the DM and stated that the golem is a tough challenge. Actually, according to what Wolfspider posted earlier, the module did the exact opposite.

While it is true that Flesh Golem is supposed to be a tougher monster based on the D20 rules, this particular flesh golem is much weaker because of the damage it sustained in the fire. It has lost a great deal of its strength and health, weakening its attacks and lowering its hit point total. [/B]

This implies that the golem CAN be handled by a low level group of PCs. It says that it is a much weaker monster, not the powerhouse it normally is.

It is not a warning. Rather, it is a poor rationalization as to why this powerful monster is there.

Wolfspider also posted that the creature was listed as having 35 hit points and was CR 3. Halving its average damage from 14 to 7.5 and dropping its hits from 49 to 35 does NOT drop it from a CR 7 to a CR 3 creature.

Please show me another CR 3 creature that effectively has 6 HD, Damage Reduction 15/+1, immunity to most spells, and immunity to criticals.

I doubt you can. DMs are actually lured into believing that this creature is less powerful than it really is by that quote from the module and the CR 3 listed. It’s not a warning, it’s a misleading reassurance.


Finally, what some posters fail to remember is that DND is a game about people. It’s the players and DMs who play and benefit from the game and the main idea behind the game is to have fun.

It is no fun when your character dies due to an overly powerful monster being placed in the scenario by the designer to “have an encounter designed to force the PCs to run away as opposed to fighting”. That is the most lame reason to be a killer DM that I have heard.

To me, the slightly weakened Golem here is similar to the Roper put into Forge of Fury, just to have PCs run away. If you have inexperienced players or the players who actually roleplay that their characters do not know what a Roper is, then you will typically get a few PC deaths, just because the designer wanted to teach PCs a lesson. Some lesson: let’s not play in this DMs world. Bogus.

Yes, the game involves risk. But, a killer DM can wipe out a party anytime he wants. Let’s not put that bogus kind of crap in modules as well. JMO.

 

[Pielorinho]

KD, I know you said this guy is a new DM. Does he, by any chance, play a cleric in a game you run? Has he, by any chance, ever come up with a foolproof plan, and then see the plan knocked down by a houserule you put in place because you didn't think the plan should be foolproof? Say, a plan involving casting a healing spell on a downed friend while within the reach of a giant?

If anyone else was complaining about detrimental house rules being sprung on them in the middle of a combat, I'd be sympathetic. But I'm surprised that you're objecting to this. Is turnabout not fair play? or is there some difference between his fumble rules and your AoO rules?

It sounds to me like overconfident PCs: they're wounded, battered, bruised, out of spells, but they think that they can take on this flesh golem just because they've got a good plan. The death of overconfident first-level PCs is probably a common thing in most D&D worlds. Weeds out the foolhardy.

And it's great that you guys roleplayed foolhardy PCs to the max. But seeing PC death is gonna be more common when you choose to RP characters with bad tactics. It's not DM punishment -- it's the DM characterizing the world plausibly.

Daniel

 

[Wolfspider]

Please show me another CR 3 creature that effectively has 6 HD, Damage Reduction 15/+1, immunity to most spells, and immunity to criticals.

What about an allip? Or a mummy? Or a wearboar? Or a werewolf?

Although the average hit points of these creatures falls short of 35 and not all of them have immunity to criticals, their special abilities and intelligence and savage attacks more than make up for that, I think.

All CR 3.

In any case, you had six characters in your party instead of the recommended four that CRs are based on, so a CR 3 encounter should have been challenging but not impossible--with proper preparation, sound tactics, and a somewhat healthy group of glory-seekers, that is.

 

[Pielorinho]

Please show me another CR 3 creature that effectively has 6 HD, Damage Reduction 15/+1, immunity to most spells, and immunity to criticals.

Well, obviously I can't show you exactly that. But a vampire commoner is CR3, has DR 15/+1, fast healing 5, the ability to dominate, the ability to INSTANTLY kill any first level PC hit (2 negative levels of damage with a hit), the ability to call 3d6 wolves to aid it, and so on. A brown bear has no DR or spell immunities, but is CR3, has 51 HP, does 38 points of damage/round if all attacks hit and can spread that damage out in 3 roughly equal packages (two of which are very likely to hit most first-level PCs), and can attack intelligently. If I were a first-level party , I'd much rather face the flesh golem than either of these opponents.

As for wolfspider's text not acting as a warning to the DM, have you read the module? Or are you so confident that wolfspider's quote was the only information the module gave about the flesh golem that you can claim the module never warns the DM about teh encounter's scariness, all claims to the contrary notwithstanding?

As long as you're nice to this new DM, though, and play like a good sport, accepting your lumps, I'd think no harm done.

Daniel