Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mark" data-source="post: 71237" data-attributes="member: 5">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.&nbsp; Yet the subject line of the thread, and the accusations you made right out of the box, were that the module was at fault.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The module writers included an appropriate &quot;fair warning&quot; and it was the final encounter (it's not like you all died in the first five minutes.)&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; In the long term, fumble rules will bring down PCs and creatures alike, but creatures are plentiful.&nbsp; It also sounds to me like you pushed your limits, rolled the dice, and they simply didn't turn up to your favor.&nbsp; For the record, I would have had the &quot;mindless&quot; Flesh Golem attempt to grab the thing poking him, as someone else pointed out.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Certainly it was a bad break but you made a good run at it! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mark, post: 71237, member: 5"] 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! :) [/QUOTE]

Verification