What is it with these modules on the internet?

[rounser]

I don't think fumble rules screw the PCs any more than critical hits do- the monsters are still susceptable to fumbles, just as they can still score critical hits.

Critical hits rules do screw PCs, for the simple reason that they'll be on the receiving end of so many of them over the course of a campaign. I think the DMG says something to this effect.

 

[KarinsDad]

Critical hits rules do screw PCs, for the simple reason that they'll be on the receiving end of so many of them over the course of a campaign. I think the DMG says something to this effect.

Just because the DMG says it does not mean that it is true.

Fumbles are no better and no worse than critical hits as long as they apply to both PCs and NPCs. Maybe they should drop critical hits from the game.

 

[Willtell]

Are you sure that the Golem is not supposed to be in a small room behind a secret door?

Our DM does not seem like the kind of person who would alter monster starting locations in a module yet.

My mistake. "The wizard also concealed a flesh golem behind the secret door on this level with the express instructions to attack anyone besides himself or the the zombies that entered this room".

 

[hong]

Just because the DMG says it does not mean that it is true.

Except in this case it is. Think about it. In the long run, no-one cares if Bob the PC kills 20 nameless orcs with 20 critical hits over the course of a few months of gaming. However, if 20 nameless orcs deal 20 critical hits to Bob over the same length of time, that may well be enough to kill Bob several times over (greataxe + 15 Str = icky damage). Bob is more important than any one nameless orc, I am sure you'll agree.

Fumbles are no better and no worse than critical hits as long as they apply to both PCs and NPCs. Maybe they should drop critical hits from the game.

If your first priority is to make the game even more survivable for low- to mid-level PCs, then yes, you should.

 

[hong]

Unless the PCs encounter it again.

In which case it's not an encounter, it's a plot element. I think there are better and less risky ways of introducing plot elements than having encounters that have the potential to wipe out the party. I'm talking about risk in terms of derailing the entire campaign if someone suffers a rush of blood to the head.

Whoever said "if you give stats for it, the players will try to kill it" was quite right.

 

[Kichwas]

Putting a pit fiend (or a flesh golem) in a first level module is dumb, for the following reasons:

1) if the PCs fight it, they will die.
2) if the PCs don't fight it, it's a bunch of wasted work for the DM.

There's a lot you can do with an encounter the PCs work to avoid.

You drop hints that it's out there, and that stears any smart players in some other direction. And gives a penalty for those who just absolutely refuse to admit that there are things in the world they cannot handle.

A world that lines up to face the PCs by order of EL/CR is at best a video game; at worst unbelievable.

Many players will much more appreciate a world that 'keeps them in their place' when they need to be there, and lets them grow up out of it if they work hard enough for it.


I used the pit fiend actually for a reason. A current popular movie based on a somewhat decently known set of novels illustrates this point using that very creature.

They see the thing there; and they run like all heck. Those PCs knew their place and they knew it wasn't to be facing a creature like that. One of them stayed to hold it off and let the others get away. They were very much a group of PCs who seriously goofed up. They knew something big was in that module; they worked to avoid it, but then they made the wrong moves and they had to flee.

Actually the night I made my first post I'd just returned from a game where we'd found ourselves in a very similar situation with some kind of fiend coming up out of the depths after us...

We're currently hiding in another part of that underground complex trying to figure out where to go next. In that module we've had a number of almost encounters with things that could wipe us off the map without flexing their muscles.

Each time the DM has done his job by ensuring the clues where there if we looked for them to let us know that that was something we should avoid. So far we've been smart enough and only lost about 4 PCs...

(The DM is the same guy who DM'd cntxt through a Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil of his own design before WotC put out that module. Hopefully cntxt will post story hours on it someday.)


Running is not the only thing you can use such an encounter for though. You can use it to impart information, set the stage for a later encounter, or even just to let them know the place has more to it than what they came there for.

In other words it adds dimension to the story.

 

[hong]

Two words - Moria, and Balrog.

Sure, it served a story point (the "death" of Gandalf), but it was also a prime lesson that there are things in the world that we encounter that are best dealt with circumspectly.

In FotR, they opted to make the trip through Moria, and never had a chance in heck of defeating the Balrog; yet, there they were, risking their lives to find the shortest route through.

Actually, I think this is a good example of a _bad_ encounter to have in a D&D adventure. What works in a book isn't necessarily the same as what works in a module. Tolkien knew that his characters weren't going to fight something that could easily kill them all; even if they did, he had plenty of time to devise an "out" so that they could somehow escape. A DM doesn't have that sort of luxury, which has an impact on how modules should be designed.

Also, note how the fellowship dealt with the balrog in the end: they _fought_ it, and they _defeated_ it. True, they were running from it at first, but once they got past the bridge, Gandalf turned around and (figuratively speaking) kicked its butt. The DM then threw a hissy fit and had the balrog roll a critical hit with its whip while it was falling, thus dragging the munchkin wizard down as well.

I have been known to put something like that in my adventures before; The players KNOW what's going to happen, yet curiosity just kills them - literally, in the case of the characters. I call it the "Head of Vecna" syndrome.

Hey, if the players know what's going to happen and want to go along for the fun of it, that's fine.

 

[Kichwas]

So, hindsight being 20/20, yes he did not have to do that. But, it was one of those situations where he spontaneously did it before the rest of the group could do anything (he is CG). And, the fact remained that the module was set up with such a creature. Even dummied down like it was, it was still too much of a threat for a first level group.

The particular module may have it's design flaws. Not having seen it I can't say.

If you put a big nasty in a module you have a responsibility to give clear clues to it's presense so the PCs with their heads on straight know to treat it with proper caution.

Not having seen this module I can't say weather I'd agree it did that or not. There are a lot of badly made modules out there after all.

So until and if I do see the module please take my critisms as for the general case I'm trying to illustrate rather than your specific one.

One thing I will say from my military experience's coloring my view of life is that every member of a team has a responsiblity for the actions of every other member.

A member who cannot be trusted needs to be pushed out.

Stupid behaivoir != chaotic behaivoir. Nor does chaotic mean a lack of caution.

If you have a person who can't follow discipline then you need to either remove them or remove their ability to be responsibile for any actions (in other words; police their actions).

My current PC; a minor noble and former bandit, would probably order the group to hang the ranger and expect the command to be carried out.
But then she believes very strongly in discipline. She's got an uncomfortable amount in common with my own view in these kinds of situations (more like me than most of my PCs, but I hear it's impossible to truely escape yourself in character design).

In a feudal like society or a military unit; even a chaotic will know to control their actions somewhat. There are just as many chaotics in the military as there are lawfuls; but discipline still doesn't break down when there's proper training.

And adventuring bands are quite often very much small independant military units in a feudal society.
The ones with the freebooting wild bent to them very rarely live long and certainly don't deserve to survive.

This kind of ties into another rant I've been considering about how PCs behaive towards the concept of a caste system (nobles, commoners, etc...).

 

[S'mon]

THIS is your justification?

I don't need a justification. All I'm saying is that it was an encounter with basic (slightly weakened) monsters, rolled under WoTC's own rules. The PCs died because they holed up in a single-exit shallow cave 1/4 mile from the dungeon and just waited for the enemy to counter-attack. Except for 1 monk, who was hiding at the dungeon entrance, he followed the orcs & cleric to the cave, then charged them from behind - he got Commanded and coup-de-graced.

There are plenty of ways they _could_ have survived. If they'd had good rolls, they would have survived. My point is that if you don't fudge the rolls, 1st level PCs die really easily even without flesh golems.

 

[S'mon]

Have a look at the DMG's random dungeon encounter charts, and compare:

1st-level: 1d4+2 goblins (no orcs at all in this list!)
2nd-level: 1d4+2 orcs

EL+3 is a relative thing. There is a much, much bigger difference between EL 1 and EL 4 than there is between EL 12 and EL 15.

Anyway, it's an easy mistake to make. I know I've overdone it on encounters in my current campaign more than often enough...

I agree and I will not use the PHB table in future for 1st level PCs - looks ok for 3rd level, I'd say. Although in this case, playing the enemy intelligently - ie sending out a decent sortie party - they'd simply have amalgamated 2 groups of 1d4+2 orcs anyway so it likely wouldn't have gone differently. If the PCs had included a spellcaster with Sleep they'd have been fine. I did warn them that 2 fighter-types & 2 monks was not an optimal configuration!