When You Keep Killing Characters?

[Umbran]

I wonder, if perhaps I need to post a link to The Rules for folks to review. If you have a problem with or a question about moderation, please don't ask it within the thread itself - that way lies derailing. Please feel free to e-mail any of the mods if you have a question - our addresses are available in a thread stickied to the top of the Meta forum.

 

[Rackhir]

Action points are a good way to avoid killing characters. There are a number of variants on the rules for them (I think the original were introduced in the Eberron Campaign Source Book), but essentially the characters get a certain number of points that they can use to either modify die rolls or to avoid dying.

One important function I've found they play is that they help buffer the campaign and the characters from mistakes or misjudgements (as to the strength of foes) on the DM's part. The DM's for both of my campaigns use them and with Shilsen's campaign in particular we'd have been loosing a PC about every other session (higher if you didn't count sessions that were mostly talk), if it wasn't for the action points.

 

[gizmo33]

Action points are a good way to avoid killing characters.

I like this idea. My players happen to like the tactical part of the the game but I don't think that people who don't should necessarily be penalized out of hand. I would think a skilled warrior would grasp the nuances of where to stand in a fight to minimize problems - it's a bit unrealistic to expect the player to get this right when his character ought to know.

IMO the bottom line is keeping the players involved. If they like the tactical game and it keeps them involved, then I'd go that way. However, if they'd prefer to assume that their warrior PC knows where to stand, and would rather focus on the more "role-playing" aspects of the game, then why not? I think forcing the players to play a certain way, when there are other options, is not good DMing.

 

[Retreater]

Funny thing is that we have tried action points. It seems that it just encouraged further sloppy play. The guys who aren't tactical burned through them in a single session and still got killed. I even gave out free "save life" tokens, and they died with those too. The other half of the group, which is more tactical based, used none of their action points or save life tokens. So I know it's not that I'm running too difficult of a campaign if half of the players are doing fine with no problems and the other half are getting killed every session or two.

In the case of this module, I'm running a pre-written, official module exactly as written. All players have been created with above average hit points, a higher point buy ability score method, and they've all been recently auditted to make sure everyone has at least the average wealth per level.

I have put in role playing situations in particularly combat-heavy sections for a change of pace. The previous session to the problem night I ran one of the "Challenge of Champions" from Dungeon magazine, so that was no combat and all problem solving designed to encourage teamwork in a non-threatening, non-deadly environment. The group came in nearly last place compared to the other rankings in the module.

 

[Rackhir]

Funny thing is that we have tried action points. It seems that it just encouraged further sloppy play. The guys who aren't tactical burned through them in a single session and still got killed. I even gave out free "save life" tokens, and they died with those too. The other half of the group, which is more tactical based, used none of their action points or save life tokens. So I know it's not that I'm running too difficult of a campaign if half of the players are doing fine with no problems and the other half are getting killed every session or two.

In the case of this module, I'm running a pre-written, official module exactly as written. All players have been created with above average hit points, a higher point buy ability score method, and they've all been recently auditted to make sure everyone has at least the average wealth per level.

I have put in role playing situations in particularly combat-heavy sections for a change of pace. The previous session to the problem night I ran one of the "Challenge of Champions" from Dungeon magazine, so that was no combat and all problem solving designed to encourage teamwork in a non-threatening, non-deadly environment. The group came in nearly last place compared to the other rankings in the module.

Well either you are dealing with people who are flat out stupid, they are simply not really interested in D&D/the game you are running or you're not explaining things very well.

The not really interested part seems the most likely. I've done some similarly self destructive things when I was in a campaign where I was frustrated with how the DM was running things. It sounds like you are making an effort to try and find out what if anything they'd like to change, so the burden would seem to be on them. I suspect you are going to find out that D&D/Your campaign/Campaign Style simply isn't what they want.

The only other thing I can suggest is you might want to point them to here and ask them to start up a thread with their point of view. You seem like a reasonable guy making an honest effort to accomodate them, but people don't always view the same events the same way and maybe there's something about how you do things that is honking them off? I suspect they won't bother though.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

The other players (the more veteran gamers) were trying to offer advice during the combat. I tried to warn the newer players like, "you're opening yourself up to 4 sneak attacks if they hit." I did not design the encounter, it came in an official WotC module. Lately with my home repairs and getting ready to move I don't really have the time to write original stuff.

The encounter was an EL 9. The group did know exactly what to expect when they were going in and had easy access to retreat the whole time. The enemies were a 6th level sorcerer, a 4th level cleric/half dragon, and 5 1st level rogues. The party was at full strength. There were 6 characters. Average party level was 5 (modified by +2 for using the recharge magic variant from Unearthed Arcana).

Sure it was a difficult, climactic encounter. But there should have been no problem had everyone played his role. Like, why in the heck should a sorcerer step up into melee combat with the BBEG to try to hit him with a Scorching Ray? He's lost several characters like this.

It's just incredibly frustrating.

Retreater

I actually use the recharge magic variant, and it in NO WAY makes characters +2 ECL higher. If anything it makes your ECL lower because you can't cast your highest level spells back to back. A regular 6th level sorcerer can cast fireball four times in a row, dealing significant damage. A recharge magic sorcerer can cast fireball once every 1d4+1 rounds, so if he rolls really lucky, he can cast 2 in the same timeframe, punctuated by a magic missile and a scorching ray.

And at low levels it's even worse! What happens if a wizard rolls 7 to recharge his 2nd level spells, a 5 to recharge his 1st, and a 4 to recharge his cantrips? I'll tell you: he ineffectually uses a staff or a crossbow for the next 4 rounds. I bet that's what happened to your sorcerer. He ran out of spells to cast so he did the only thing he could do: run up and stick someone with a spear.

As far as sheer power, this variant is not as strong as the core system. You just never run out of spells. But what makes D&D casters strong isn't that they don't run out of magic--it's that they can use their highest level tricks back to back.

Basically you're saying that this party is actually 3rd level? Of course they're going to die in that encounter. I honestly have no idea where they get +2 ECL out of this system. I guess because you can be buffed up all the time? What if you don't have anyone who casts buffs?

 

[Old Gumphrey]

On further thought, I think the +2 ECL would be valid for the number of additional encounters a party with at least 2 casters could handle in a given day, but not the actual encounter levels. IE a 3rd-level party still has basically no chance against an EL 9 (where 3 of your players died), but they can fight an additional two EL 3 encounters each day without much problem.

 

[Retreater]

No, there's some misunderstanding.

The party was mostly 5th level, with a couple 4th level characters. The party's average level was not 3rd. THis is well within the module's suggested character level guidelines, and probably a bit higher because we started the session with 7 characters (nearly twice the number of characters it suggests).

The first character death of the session happened before the final fight, the one with the 4th level half dragon cleric, 6th level sorcerer, and 5 1st level rogues. So that combat killed two characters, not three.

The player lost his sorcerer, not because he had nothing else to cast, but because he moved to melee range to cast a ranged touch spell against a big bad monster. Even if he didn't have a spell to cast, he could have used Magic Missile from his wand.

Here's the way Recharge Magic works for us. The cleric and sorcerer buff up the party with Bull's Strength and Enlarge Person. So you have a half-orc barbarian the size of an ogre running around doing massive damage with an enlarged greataxe and a large fighter with massive reach from an elongated spiked chain. Every combat is entered at maximum strength of hit points. Going at every combat at full strength is quite an advantage to this group over other groups.

The problem about running out of magic hurts both ways. NPC spellcasters run out, but they're less likely to have a backup contingency than the party casters are.

But whether or not an EL 9 was too difficult for this party, the players who lost their characters had made some poor decisions that led to their deaths. Walking into a group of rogues (which the player and his character already knew from previous encounters) to get flanked 4 ways, having your 5th level sorcerer walk into melee with a tough boss character who just did 1d8+14 points of damage to the barbarian, that's just poor planning.

 

[robberbaron]

Sounds like it was a suicide to me.

 

[billd91]

But whether or not an EL 9 was too difficult for this party, the players who lost their characters had made some poor decisions that led to their deaths. Walking into a group of rogues (which the player and his character already knew from previous encounters) to get flanked 4 ways, having your 5th level sorcerer walk into melee with a tough boss character who just did 1d8+14 points of damage to the barbarian, that's just poor planning.

I think you're right here. An EL like this should be considered very difficult, but not at all impossible, particularly given your extra 2 PCs over the default 4. That half-dragon would be a pretty tough customer, though.