What is it with these modules on the internet?

[Wolfspider]

After preparing more oil and torches, we head back up to see if we can rescue anyone. We check out the room and figure the Golem is back in the compartment. So, we take our friends below, decide to not risk the potions on them, and set up an ambush for the Golem. Just the Illusionist and the Cleric with no spells.

Yeah...a brilliant plan there.

I fall firmly in the camp of those who believe this massacre was the fault of the players. They got stomped once by the golem and should have learned their lesson, pulling out and saving what companions they could. Instead, without even resting or regaining spells, they rush back in virtually unprepared. Very bad (dare I say stupid?) tactics.

As far as including something that is vastly more powerful than the party in an adventure, I also support it. One thing I have done in the past is introduce the campaign's main villian right at the start, when the characters are just 1st level. For example, they might witness from afar the great wyrm red dragon wiping out a town, or might arrive just in time to see the lich depart with its prisoner, leaving a wake of destruction behind. Or the party comes upon a door carved with deep runes that spell out doom and destruction for the whole world if the seal is broken. The door is also depicts in gruesome and unmistakable detail some demon lord, imprisoned years before.

One thing that all D&D players need to learn how to do is RETREAT WHEN THEY ARE OUTMATCHED. Only a mindless animal fights to the death.

To be fair, the DM was at fault somewhat by introducing critical fumble rules, which, as the DMG points out, work mostly to screw over the players and not their opponents. This seems to be the case here.

 

[Ysgarran]

Is it possible that the module purposely weakened the Flesh Golem so it did only 1d8+5 instead of 2d8+5? (Well, ONLY is a relative term, 1d8+5 is still alot for first level characters, but then so is a dozen potions). I'm not sure we can make a fair assessment of the module without knowing more of the particulars of the module.

If what was a full blown Flesh Golem, then yes, that is probably too much, especially if the characters didn't have any options. It is rare that they characters don't have the option to run...although that option may have been lost when the Rogue went down. Many times party members are loathe to leave someone behind.

A side note about creatures...
There is never any wasted work in my campaigns. If the characters feel that discretion is the better of valor, the creature just becomes part of the campaign world for the future.

 

[Wolfspider]

*****SPOILERS for The Dead Fire adventure!!!!*****

Yes, the adventure greatly reduced the power of the flesh golem. Here is the relevent text from the adventure:

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.

The golem has only 35 hit points and its damage has been reduced to 1d8+3. It is listed as CR 3, but the adventure is designed for characters levels 1 through 3 (and this encounter comes at the very end). It is a tough encounter, to be sure, but not unwinnable in any means--IF the party is well rested and prepared with a full allotment of spells. If they run off half-assed into combat with the golem, especially after losing party members and not having any spells, they will be pounded into the dirt.

Remember that the party entered the room with the golem when they were already seriously injured. They pushed a button that was going to do who knows what without being at all prepared. What were you all thinking? Why didn't you go back downstairs and out of the tower to rest for a bit first?

Incidentally, I think Dead Fire is a really good adventure.

 

[UniversalMonster]

also...

Did the players get a chance to rest and perhaps level up? It's a small point but it would make a huge difference.

 

[Henry@home]

Either way, it's pointless to have encounters that are mismatched to the strength of the party. If an encounter is so strong as to require the party not face it if they want to survive, then it might as well not have been there. Better to remove it altogether, and use the space saved for more meaningful content.

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.

Now, in the case of this encounter, I can see where this is a "DM screws with the players" kind of addition. It doesn't sound like an encounter that MUST be overcome (I do not know for certain since I have never read the adventure); not like a certain encounter in The Forge of Fury by WotC, where the heroes must deal with an obviously superior opponent to get something that they absolutely need. (No Spoilers Here!)

This sounds like the type of encounter where, if the PC's are clever enough, they will overcome the thingie and find something really nice beyond it for their trouble.

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.

 

[Lazybones]

Come on, Wolfspider, critical fumbles are one of the most entertaining elements of the game! (well, ok, maybe not for the players )

Otherwise, I'm entirely with you, Wulf, and the others who put some of the blame on the heads of the players. It sounds like a tough dungeon, although it seems like they hit on a good tactic (if only they'd rested and regrouped first). IMHO, if players start to get the impression that the DM won't throw any challenges their way that are beyond their capabilities and truly threatening, then a large part of that essential "element of danger" is lost from the campaign.

LB

 

[EOL]

I agree with all the people who say that not every monster needs to be defeated. The very first 3e adventure I ran had a Pit Fiend in it, by the time the party reached it they were around 2nd level. They obviously did not fight it (which was good because the Monster Manual was not out yet ) It will show up again.

That being said, I have found that the players get really annoyed if there's some ultra-powered uber-villain who shows up from time to time, demonstrates his vastly superior powers by humiliating the PC's and then vanishes with an evil laugh.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yeah...a brilliant plan there.

I fall firmly in the camp of those who believe this massacre was the fault of the players. They got stomped once by the golem and should have learned their lesson, pulling out and saving what companions they could. Instead, without even resting or regaining spells, they rush back in virtually unprepared. Very bad (dare I say stupid?) tactics.

Personally, I take offense at these types of statements.

Although I did not like the fact that the Ranger pushed the button, who knows if it would have opened the door, who knows if there would have been treasure back there instead of a very powerful monster, who knows that nothing may have happened. We had just fought 3 Fire Zombies in that room, so the Ranger "thinking the coast is clear" was fairly reasonable.

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.

In the first fight, if we would have just run away as opposed to fighting, a few more party members would have been knocked unconscious and probably died due to failing stability checks. Plus, having played DND for 23 years, although I knew that the magical sword was the only melee weapon that could affect the Golem, my character did not know that. And, the other players (being new to DND for the most part) did not know it at all. So, it was round two of the combat before any of them realized that their main weapons were ineffective. Btw, the Rogue was knocked unconscious in the surprise round, the Golem rolled a good initiative, and knocked the Ranger who had pushed the button and had the magic sword unconscious at the beginning of round one.

In the second battle, it mattered little whether the entire party was up or not. The only two weapons we had that could affect the Golem were oil and the sword and we only had 4 flasks of oil left (2 were used at the barricade, 2 were thrown at it).

Arranging the sword as an unwieldy spear with reach where the Golem had an extremely difficult time of counterattacking was actually a very good plan. The Cleric has a 16 Strength, so she is a fairly good fighter for a first level character. Yes, it’s too bad that she kept rolling low, but there was only room for one above the telescope and she was as good a candidate with her high AC, hit points, and to hit as any of the combatant types in the group (at that level).

And yes, the Cleric and I discussed just retreating. But, she was eager for revenge, my character believes strongly in revenge and I thought the plan might work (which it came close to doing), so we decided to implement it.

Stupid, doubtful. Roleplaying your character, yes.

But, I personally take offense at being called stupid for a good plan that almost worked. In fact, the only difference was that the Cleric got knocked unconscious due to the DMs house rule (which was not in his list of house rules). So, we did not even know that there was even a chance of her slipping and coming within reach of the Golem.

Yes, we did not have to implement the plan. But, we felt it important to avenge our fallen, especially the other Ranger who had died.

One thing that all D&D players need to learn how to do is RETREAT WHEN THEY ARE OUTMATCHED. Only a mindless animal fights to the death.

As a general rule, I agree. However, we were in a situation where retreating and resting up appeared to not buy us much and we were in a mood to avenge our comrades.

To be fair, the DM was at fault somewhat by introducing critical fumble rules, which, as the DMG points out, work mostly to screw over the players and not their opponents. This seems to be the case here.

Yes, but to be fair to the DM, he is new at this. It was his second week and if he would have been running a more reasonable module, the deck would not have been as heavily stacked against us, and against him as a new DM.

And in this case, all of the rest of the players (except myself) are new to 3E as well (a few have played 2E). So, putting the blame on the players is just plain wrong as well. I thought we did quite well to get it down to a few hit points considering two out of six of us were knocked unconscious before the end of the first round of combat.

But, the important thing here is that module designers should think out the repercussions of putting in creatures that for the most part, cannot be affected by the level of PCs who will encounter them. Bottom line. Not every DM is experienced enough to realize that such a creature could easily decimate his group.

 

[LostSoul]

Personally, I take offense at these types of statements.

As well you should. It's easy to sit back and judge the actions of another group running an adventure. Harder to do when you're in the thick of it.

 

[Wolfspider]

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).

Alignment does not control your actions like this. If the character decided to press the button because it was in character or simply because he had the urge, well that's fine. It's also well and good if you and the other player decided to pursue revenge in stead of resting up and being better prepared. These things are still tactically unsound, and your party paid for their hasty actions dearly, as your own description shows.

In the second battle, it mattered little whether the entire party was up or not. The only two weapons we had that could affect the Golem were oil and the sword and we only had 4 flasks of oil left (2 were used at the barricade, 2 were thrown at it).

If your party had taken a day to rest and prepare, the cleric could have cast magic weapon a couple times to give your party a few more combat options, as well as bolstering them with other magicks.

Personally, I take offense at these types of statements.

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that way. If you look back at what I wrote, I never claimed that YOU or any of the players in your group were stupid. I said that your tactics were very bad, bordering on stupid. A smart person can do something stupid. Heck, I do stupid things all the time, and I think I'm somewhat intelligent.

Don't take this so personally. You came to this forum with a gripe, and I decided to respond to your condemnation of the adventure with a different viewpoint. That's what these forums are for, after all. Discussion. Which is what we're having right now.

I understand that the players in your group are inexperienced with D&D and that is why they don't have much of an understanding of the dangers they'll face, but please don't unfairly blame the adventure when it is really the inexperience of the players and the DM that are mostly to blame. The adventure clearly explained that the flesh golem was a dangerous foe even in its weakened form.

It's easy to sit back and judge the actions of another group running an adventure. Harder to do when you're in the thick of it.

Of course it's easier! Don't we all do it? Someone comes to the forum with a situation like this, and we all judge it according to our own experiences and beliefs. We simply can't jump into Karinsdad's mind and see exactly what happened there blow by blow. We're forced to interpret and extrapolate.

Or are you saying that a person can never make a critical judgement of something unless he or she has personally gone through it? I would disagree with that statement wholeheartedly.